Create Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the update_balance flag's side effect on account balance, the sign convention for amount, and the return of created transaction details. It doesn't mention failure modes or auth requirements, but with annotation coverage present, the additional behavioral disclosure is above average.

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 docstring-style Args layout is well organized and front-loaded with the purpose sentence. Each parameter entry earns its place given the 0% schema coverage, and the update_balance explanation is appropriately detailed. Slightly verbose but justified by the need to document seven parameters.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers every parameter with actionable semantics, discloses the balance side-effect, and states the return value. It omits edge cases like error behavior on invalid category_id or whether the operation can be undone (relevant given update_balance=true), but these are minor given the output schema and annotations.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility — and it delivers. All 7 parameters receive meaning beyond the raw schema: amount's sign convention (positive income/negative expense), account_id's source, date's format, category_id's requiredness and source, notes' optionality, and update_balance's behavioral semantics. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Create a manual transaction' — a specific verb and resource with the 'manual' qualifier clarifying it is for user-entered transactions rather than imported ones. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like update_transaction, but the create/update distinction is self-evident from the name and it clearly distinguishes the action.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by telling the agent to source account_id from get_accounts and category_id from get_transaction_categories, which are effective prerequisites. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., refresh_accounts for automated syncing, or update_transaction for modifying an existing record), leaving that to inference.

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