Post transactions to a manual management connected service, requiring user approval. Provide transaction details like date, value, side, and content to create entries.
手動管理の連携サービスに明細を作成します（要ユーザー承認）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| office_code | No | 対象事業者の事業者番号（XXXX-XXXX）。APIキー認証では必須。MF_OFFICE_CODE を設定していれば省略可 | |
| transactions | Yes | ||
| connected_account_id | Yes | 手動管理(is_manual: true)の連携サービスID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that this is a write operation and adds the important trait that user approval is required. However, it does not explain the approval flow, possible side effects, or what happens on rejection, leaving behavioral transparency only partially covered.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical approval note is efficient, though the terseness leaves some contextual gaps.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial transactions array, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, approval behavior, error conditions, or relationship to sibling transaction/voucher tools.
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 67%, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The key 'transactions' array and its fields (date, value, side, content) remain unexplained, and the description does not clarify value formats or side semantics.
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 states a clear verb ('作成します' / creates) and a specific resource: transaction details (明細) in the manually managed connected service. It is distinguishable from sibling post tools like postJournals or postVouchers, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 implies when to use the tool: when creating transaction details in a manually managed connected service, and it warns that user approval is required. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling post tools such as postJournals or postTransactionJournalize.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.