create_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatic ID lookup, line item computation of total by QuickBooks, and return of deposit details with a link. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, error handling, or reversibility, which are non-critical but would enhance transparency.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy. It efficiently covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and output.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (details and link) and covers the behavior of line items. It lacks error condition details or validation notes, but overall provides sufficient context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the auto-lookup for names, the sign convention for amounts (positive income, negative fees), and that QuickBooks computes totals. This provides meaning beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 'Create a bank deposit' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., create_invoice, create_bill) by focusing on deposits. The additional detail about accepting names and auto-lookup reinforces its unique purpose.

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 implicitly indicates usage (recording bank deposits) and highlights the auto-lookup feature, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_sales_receipt or create_expense. No exclusion criteria are provided, which is a minor gap.

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