add_bank_transaction

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions adding an operation and cash inflow/outflow. It does not describe whether this creates a durable ledger entry, requires an existing account, affects reconciliation, or what the return value is—significant gaps for a mutating 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose without filler. Every word contributes value, and no redundant structure exists.

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 tool is a write operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return behavior, prerequisites, or downstream effects. While the schema covers parameters, the overall usage context remains incomplete for an AI agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all six parameters including amount sign and type codes. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Ajouter') and resource ('opération bancaire manuelle'), and adds the scope of 'entrée ou sortie de trésorerie'. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_bank_transactions and reconciliation tools by emphasizing the manual add action.

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 term 'manuelle' implies usage for manual bank entries rather than automated/reconciled ones, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. The description gives context but does not guide when to choose this over tools like add_payment_to_invoice or reconcile_bank_line.

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