billy_prepare

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

The description says 'without modifying Billy,' which implies the tool has no side effects on the target system. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, meaning the tool may write and potentially destroy data. The description also says it 'persists,' which suggests state changes. This directly contradicts the structured annotations and could mislead an agent into treating the tool as safe/no-op.

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 concise at four sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes the key safety framing ('without modifying Billy') and necessary prerequisites without verbose filler. The structure is serviceable, though the prerequisite clauses are appended at the end.

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 large, complex operation schema with seven variants and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the prepare-then-execute workflow, what to do with the returned ID/hash, failure behavior, and how the proposal relates to sibling tools like billy_execute. The two constraints provided are useful but leave major 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only names 'operation' and 'reason' without explaining the operation kinds, reason semantics, or how to construct a valid operation object. The constraints about receipts and reconciliation are helpful but do not clarify the parameters themselves.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate and persist a concrete write proposal without modifying Billy.' It clearly indicates this is a preparation step rather than an execution step, which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like billy_execute. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it should be compared with.

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 gives actionable context: receipts must be uploaded before preparing a booking, and reconciliation is restricted to existing bank-account postings. These are useful preconditions and constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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