create_split_transaction

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds a meaningful behavioral invariant: 'The split amounts must sum to the total.' It also frames the transaction as 'bank-facing total,' which adds context. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, reversibility, or side effects beyond the sum constraint, and much of the constraint detail is already in the schema.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then immediately states the key constraint. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every part earns its place.

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 mutating tool with complete schema documentation and readOnlyHint annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the split concept and sum requirement, which are the main non-obvious aspects. It lacks explicit guidance on how this tool relates to create_transaction, but the schema and annotations cover most operational context, making this a minor gap.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the sum relationship. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 provides a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('split transaction'), and clarifies the core concept with 'one bank-facing total spread across multiple categories.' It is clearly distinguishable from generic transaction tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_transaction. The description is clear but relies on the tool name for full differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a single bank-facing total needs to be allocated across multiple categories), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_transaction or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice from context and sibling names.

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