create_scheduled_transaction

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful constraints: currency defaults to the book default, and currency is 'not updatable after creation — delete and recreate to change it.' It also clarifies that notes are visible in GnuCash's double-line register view, helping an agent predict side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 longer than average but every line earns its place for a 9-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions. The one-sentence purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args list with examples and constraints.

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?

The description covers every parameter, required and optional, including defaults and format validation. Since an output schema exists, not describing the return value is acceptable. Minor details like how soon the schedule starts are not necessary for a correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the docstring compensates fully by explaining each parameter: split amounts must be decimal strings, quantity is required on commodity mismatch, frequency has six enumerated values, and currency has a concrete usage example. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Create') and names a distinct resource ('recurring transaction template'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_transactions and create_transaction_from_scheduled. The scope is unambiguous even before reading the parameters.

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 sets a clear context: this tool is for recurring templates, not one-off transactions or posting from an existing schedule. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, so it stops short of a full exclusion list.

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