Preview a Money Lover transaction

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does well by explicitly stating that no write occurs, which is the most important behavioral trait for an AI agent to know. It also indicates that category resolution and duplicate detection are performed, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond argument names.

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 a single efficient sentence: an action, a result, and a safety constraint, all without redundancy. It front-loads the core behavior and does not waste tokens on restating the name or title.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, so the description must carry substantial weight. It covers the no-write safety message and category resolution, but omits the expected return value, behavior when a duplicate is found, error handling, authentication via token, and how to choose categoryId versus categoryName. An agent would be under-served when attempting to correctly invoke this tool.

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 only 13%, and the schema contains no descriptions for 7 of 8 parameters. The description's mention of category resolution relates to categoryId/categoryName, but it does not explain amount, date, note, walletId, token, or runtimeCategoryId. The agent must infer their meanings from names and types alone, which is risky.

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 two concrete behaviors: resolving a category and checking for an exact duplicate, while explicitly noting that nothing is written. It gives the tool an identity beyond its title, though it stops short of explicitly naming how this differs from sibling tools like add_transaction.

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 phrase 'without writing anything' implies this is a read-only/preflight variant of add_transaction, giving some contextual guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over add_transaction, diagnose_write_context, or get_categories, nor does it mention prerequisites like being logged in.

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