Continue Accounting Workflow

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description states actions like 'resolve' and 'prepare' which imply mutation but not destruction. No contradiction exists, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as side effects or prerequisites.

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 concise sentence that front-loads key actions, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by being direct and informative.

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 9 parameters, no required params, no output schema, and involves complex workflows. The description alone is insufficient; it does not summarize usage patterns, return values, or prerequisites. The agent must rely heavily on schema descriptions, which are detailed but not a substitute for a complete description.

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%, with each parameter having a detailed description (e.g., action enum, plan_handle format). The main description is brief and does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is informative. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Continue an accounting workflow response, resolve a review item, or prepare an approval action.' It uses specific verbs and resources, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools (e.g., invoices, clients).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the sibling tools are largely unrelated (CRUD operations), so the agent can infer the tool's specialized role. The enum descriptions in the schema offer some context for each action.

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