update_piggy_bank

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only implies mutation ('Add/remove money') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether the amount is absolute or delta, or any other behavioral detail. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 short and to the point, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded enough, but the single phrase lacks structure or elaboration that would aid comprehension.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this tool requires a more complete description. The description only says 'Add/remove money' with no detail on effects, response format, or error scenarios, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters 'id' and 'amount' but does not. It hints that 'amount' is money, but does not specify its format (e.g., sign convention, decimal handling) or what 'id' refers to. The description adds very little semantic value beyond the raw 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 states a clear action ('Add/remove money from goal') but is vague about what a 'goal' is, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_transaction or update_account. It is not a tautology, but it lacks precision and context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate use cases, so an agent has to infer when this tool is relevant.

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