create_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-step preview/confirm mechanic, the sign convention for expenses vs income, the currency defaulting behavior, the required exchange rate flow, and the need for a unique request_id. This is exceptionally transparent for a transaction creation 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential operational detail. It covers complex behavior in just four sentences without redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of an 11-parameter transaction creation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description handles the critical workflow and non-obvious semantics well. It omits explanations for a few self-explanatory parameters, but the overall guidance is sufficient to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of amount, transaction_type, currency, exchange_rate, confirm, and request_id, which are the non-obvious parameters. However, several parameters (wallet_id, category_id, note, labels, occurred_at) are left unexplained, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.

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 immediately states 'Preview or create a transaction' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes the two-phase preview/confirm workflow. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 explicit workflow guidance: first call with confirm=false, review the preview, then confirm with confirm=true and a unique request_id. It also explains how to handle different currencies and exchange rates. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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