create_transaction

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds the sign convention (negative for expenses, positive for income), which is a useful behavioral rule for input values. However, it does not disclose what happens after creation (e.g., balance updates, validation, or return value), which would be valuable context.

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 core purpose and includes the critical sign convention. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is optimal for a create operation.

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?

With a comprehensive schema covering all parameters and defaults, the description is adequate for a simple create operation. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists. It might be improved by noting prerequisites (e.g., account must exist) or that amounts are in human units, but the schema already includes these details. Overall, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the sign convention, which is also present in the amount parameter description, so it reinforces but does not substantially extend beyond the schema. The phrase 'to an account' reiterates the account parameter's role, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Add' and the resource 'transaction', specifying that it adds to an account. It also includes the sign convention for amounts, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_split_transaction or create_transfer, though the name and verb make it reasonably distinct.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_split_transaction for split entries or create_transfer for transfers. The only usage-related note is the sign convention for amounts, which is about input formatting, not tool selection. This leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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