add_monthly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as an upsert, lists valid categories, warns against inventing new strings, and mentions currency conversion. However, it lacks details on idempotency, whether it replaces existing entries, or any destructive behavior beyond upsert semantics.

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 information-dense but well-structured: starts with a concise purpose, gives usage guidance, then lists valid categories. It is not overly verbose and every sentence adds value. A bit longer due to category enumeration, but efficiently packaged.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description covers input details, valid values, and usage workflow (ask, confirm, call, then report_settle). It does not explain return value format, but that is acceptable given the context. Mostly complete for the agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (only period and date have schema descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the balance and flow array structure, listing all valid type/sub_type/category combinations, and noting default currency and conversion behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Batch upsert balance and flow entries for a single period in one call' and explicitly identifies it as the primary tool for month-end settlement. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_balance or add_flows which are for single entries.

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?

It provides explicit triggers ('결산', '월말 결산', 'month-end closing', 'record this month') and instructs the agent to ask for categories, confirm numbers, then call this tool. It also suggests calling report_settle after. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus alternative tools like add_balance.

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