mfc_ca_postTransactions

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

With no annotations, the description bears the behavioral burden. It discloses the important side-effect that user approval is required and implies a mutating POST, but it does not describe failure modes, reversibility, or what happens on approval denial. This is helpful but incomplete.

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?

A single compact sentence carries the core action, target constraint, and a critical behavioral note. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

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 2-parameter POST with a nested array and no output schema, the description gives the essential service type and approval context, and the schema supplies the structural requirements. It is adequate for constructing a call, but it leaves return-value and failure behavior unspecified.

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 coverage is only 50%: connected_account_id has a description, but the transactions array and its item fields (date, value, side, content, memo) have no descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining transaction field meanings, date format, or value units.

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 names a specific action ('明細を作成' = create line items/details) and a specific target ('手動管理の連携サービス' = manually managed connected service), and it adds the user-approval requirement. It is distinguishable from the many get/report siblings by the manual-management context, though it does not explicitly contrast it with postJournals or postVouchers.

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 expression '手動管理の連携サービスに' is a clear context restriction: this tool is for creating details in a manually managed connected account, which the connected_account_id schema description reinforces. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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