Добавить доход

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes only that amount must be positive and expressed in a currency, but says nothing about whether this creates a transaction visible to get_transactions, what happens with duplicate entries, what permissions or account prerequisites apply, or what the result looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's exclusiveMinimum constraint, which slightly weakens the efficiency.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It neither explains the required source parameter's role nor clarifies how income records interact with the rest of the transaction toolset.

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 67%, and the only parameter the description touches is amount — a constraint that merely restates the schema's exclusiveMinimum: 0. The remaining parameters (date, source, account, comment, currency) receive no added meaning from the description, so it leaves a real coverage gap unfilled.

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 verb and resource in 'Записать доход', so an agent immediately knows this creates an income record. It does not distinguish this from sibling write tools such as add_expense, add_transfer, or add_currency_exchange, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus add_expense or add_transfer, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is specifically for income rather than an expense or transfer.

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