savings_goal_createCreate a new savings goal for a Starling Bank account by providing the account UID, name, currency, and optional target amount.
Create a new savings goal
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the savings goal | |
| target | No | Target amount for the savings goal | |
| currency | Yes | Currency code (e.g., GBP) | |
| accountUid | Yes | The account UID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No | ||
| savingsGoalUid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the rest of the burden and delivers nothing: no required permissions, no note that target is optional, no statement about side effects or what the created object contains. It at least does not contradict the annotation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, this brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it earns no credit above adequate.
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?
For a 4-parameter write tool with a nested target object, the description never mentions which fields are required (accountUid, name, currency) or that target is optional. The output schema and full schema coverage carry the structural load, but the description leaves the agent with no behavioral or usage 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested target object is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Create a new savings goal' is a verbatim restatement of the tool title 'Create savings goal'. It names no scope, no distinguishing behavior, and nothing that separates it from siblings like savings_goal_deposit or savings_goal_update beyond the obvious verb.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as savings_goal_update for existing goals. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.