myob_receive_money_prepare_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at risk via 'high-risk approval required' but fails to explain side effects, whether preparation writes data, idempotency, or response behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the approval warning.

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 short and front-loaded, but under-specification outweighs conciseness. Every sentence is vague and misses critical workflow details that would justify its brevity.

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 complex prepare operation with nested objects and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't mention return values, commit/approval next steps, or relationships to sibling tools like myob_commit_operation, leaving the agent without essential operational context.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. json_body is an open object with no field guidance, and business_id is ignored entirely. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 identifies a specific action ('prepare') and resource ('receive-money transaction creation'), making the basic purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling prepare tools by targeting receive-money specifically, though it doesn't explain what 'prepare' entails.

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 myob_raw_prepare_mutation or myob_entity_prepare_create. The 'high-risk approval required' note is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline, and there's no mention of fit in the prepare/commit/approval workflow.

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