Postings: assign receipt to free posting

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

The description discloses that the operation links/unlinks records, is reversible, and is a write operation (🟡 WRITE). It also notes the endpoint. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the reversible and link/unlink semantics, which go beyond the annotations. Minor gap: no detail on side effects or idempotency, but the reversible note is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the write/reversible warning, then the purpose, then the alternative. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the tool name but adds useful routing info. No wasted sentences, though the emoji and repeated title could be trimmed.

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 simple 2-parameter link operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core use case, the alternative, and the reversibility. It doesn't explain what the response contains, but the output schema exists, so that burden is not on the description. The only missing context is any prerequisite (e.g., the posting must be free), which is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameters beyond their names and schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 verb 'assign' and the resource 'receipt to a free posting', and explains the purpose: attaching a receipt to a free posting that was booked without one. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling transactions_assign_receipts, which is a different target 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: to attach a receipt to a free posting booked without a supporting document. It also names the alternative tool (transactions_assign_receipts) and the condition for choosing it (linking to a bank transaction instead). This is clear routing guidance.

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