assign_to_bank

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation but does not reveal whether adding to a bank is idempotent, replaces existing assignments, or requires specific permissions. The note about events living in multiple banks implies non-destructiveness, but still lacks depth.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is overly minimal. It lacks structure such as bullet points or additional context. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain how to construct the event_path and bank_path, leaving the agent with too much ambiguity.

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 must compensate. It only mentions 'event' and 'bank' without explaining what event_path and bank_path refer to or their required format. This adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names.

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 action: 'Add the event to the given bank', and notes the key property that events can live in multiple banks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event or set_event_property. However, it doesn't define what a 'bank' is in this context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_to_bus or create_event. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or any ordering dependencies.

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