qb_add_transaction

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond the basic add: automatic undo logging and the ability to revert via qb_revert_run, along with the expected_company_file safety mechanism. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well to mention these side-effects and dependencies, though it omits details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly deliver the most critical usage details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, undo mechanism, company file safety), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality, undo support, and an important guardrail. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return value (run_id) and mentioning prerequisite state, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

Adds some meaning beyond the input schema by describing the 'lines' parameter format (account, amount, memo) and explaining the 'expected_company_file' parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more for the remaining six parameters (txn_type, account, txn_date, payee, refnum, header_memo) which are left unexplained. The provided info is helpful but insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no other documentation.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool's action (adds a transaction) and lists the specific transaction types it supports (Check, Deposit, CreditCardCharge, CreditCardCredit). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like qb_delete_transaction or qb_modify_transaction_line, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides specific guidance on using expected_company_file to prevent running on the wrong company file, and references qb_revert_run for undoing the transaction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other transaction-related tools like qb_modify_transaction_line or qb_delete_transaction, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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