wb_fin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state the key behavioral trait: write operations require confirm=true ('含写操作需 confirm') and the domain contains write operations ('本域含写操作'), warning the agent about mutation risk. However, beyond the confirm gate it says nothing about return format, error behavior, or side effects, and part of the disclosure duplicates the schema's confirm parameter description. The additive context is useful but thin.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the most important routing fact ('财务域') before scope enumeration and the safety requirement. There is zero filler; every element earns its place.

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 3-parameter dispatcher with a fully documented schema, the description covers domain identification, scope, and the confirm safety gate, which is sufficient for correct routing. It lacks example fin-domain command strings (the schema examples are todo-domain) and any hint about output format, and with no output schema or annotations those gaps are not filled elsewhere. The essentials for selecting and invoking the tool are present, but not much more.

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 100% — command, args, and confirm each have detailed documentation including usage examples and the args-vs-command precedence rule. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond labeling the domain, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies this as the finance-domain command family ('财务域：fin 命令族') and enumerates concrete sub-resources (账户/流水/分类/预算/目标/订阅), which tells an agent what domain it operates on and distinguishes it from sibling domain tools like wb_todo and wb_dev_task. As a command dispatcher it lacks a single action verb, but the domain label plus resource range make its purpose unambiguous enough.

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 domain label implies finance commands should be routed here while sibling tools cover their own domains, but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states a when-not-to-use condition. The schema adds that each domain's allowed first word lives in the tool description, and 'fin 命令族' marks that boundary. This is implied routing context, not explicit guidance.

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