create_transaction

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint: false). Description adds useful context about the sign convention for amounts and using human amounts. However, it does not disclose return values, side effects, or whether the transaction is immediately posted. Still, it provides enough behavior beyond annotations.

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 sentences, no filler, immediately conveys purpose and key nuance. Front-loaded with verb and object. Very efficient.

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?

Lacks explanation of what happens after creation (e.g., return value, immediate posting, sync requirement). Since no output schema exists, description should cover outcome or side effects. Description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds helpful detail for the amount parameter ('Use human amounts like -150.50, not cents'), which goes beyond the schema description. No other parameters need extra explanation.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Add' and resource 'new transaction to an account'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_split_transaction or create_transfer by implying a simple single-entry transaction. Also specifies sign convention for amounts.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools suggest scenarios (e.g., split transactions, transfers), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names are given. Usage is somewhat implied but not clarified.

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