record_revenue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action 'record' without disclosing side effects (e.g., database mutation), idempotency, required permissions, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a clear, well-structured docstring with a concise single-line summary followed by a parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is efficiently organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all parameters but omits return value, side effects, defaults (though in schema), and constraints (e.g., amount must be positive). For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents all 6 parameters with examples (e.g., marketplace as 'thingiverse', transaction_type values). It adds meaning beyond the schema by providing allowed values and clarifying the purpose of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a revenue event (sale, royalty, tip, or refund).' It specifies the verb 'record' and the resource 'revenue event', and explicitly lists the allowed transaction types, distinguishing it from siblings like 'record_print_outcome' or 'model_revenue'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other recording tools or revenue-related tools). It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given numerous sibling tools, this lack of usage direction hinders correct selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.