create_transaction

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It merely restates the tool's function without disclosing side effects, errors, idempotency, or posting behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist, but the description adds no behavioral insight beyond the tool's name.

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, well-formed German sentence that is readily parseable and front-loaded with the verb. No fluff or redundancy. However, it borders on under-specification since the description is nearly a restatement of the tool name.

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 rich 100% schema coverage and the relatively simple CREATE operation, the description suffices for basic use. However, it omits any mention of side effects, idempotency, or interaction with receipt assignment (siblings suggest a workflow), which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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%, with all 11 parameters documented in German including the important sign convention for amount (positiv für Eingang, negativ für Ausgang) and format examples for dates. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no additional parameter context.

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 'Erstellt eine neue Banktransaktion auf einem Zahlungskonto' uses a specific verb (Erstellt) and resource (Banktransaktion auf einem Zahlungskonto), clearly conveying the action. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, the action type differs obviously from receipt/invoice tools by name and stated resource.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_free_posting, create_receipt, or how it relates to existing transactions in a bank feed. The description is purely declarative with no context, exclusions, or alternative routing advice.

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