record_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a real write (not idempotent), adjusts inventory by default, and requires an API key. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the side effects and prerequisites.

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 three sentences with no filler. It starts with the core purpose, then immediate side-effect info, then auth requirement. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and side effects but lacks information about return value, error conditions, or the fact that it likely returns the created transaction. It is minimally complete for an agent to use correctly but leaves gaps.

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?

The schema has 50% description coverage, but the tool description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. It does not elaborate on the role of 'type', 'quantity', or other key fields beyond what the schema provides. The description should have supplemented parameter understanding, especially for less obvious fields like 'skipInventorySync' which is already documented in schema.

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 the tool records buy or sell transactions and explains the default inventory adjustment (BUY adds, SELL subtracts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions (read-only) and update_transaction/delete_transaction by emphasizing it is a 'real write' and affects inventory.

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 provides some context (it adjusts inventory by default, can be skipped with 'skipInventorySync'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_transaction. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given.

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