create_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It focuses on input fields but omits details on idempotency, side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return values. The tool's mutation behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by a clear list of required fields, then optional fields, and a practical mapping note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and a generic input schema, the description adequately covers input fields but fails to specify the return format (e.g., created transaction ID), error handling, or constraints. This is acceptable but incomplete for a creation 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (generic object with additionalProperties), so the description carries full burden. It lists required and optional fields with format hints (e.g., date format, amount mapping from 'total' to 'amount'), adding substantial meaning beyond the 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 'Create a transaction in the Recite API' and lists required/optional fields, explicitly distinguishing the creation action from sibling tools like update_transaction and delete_transaction.

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 input field details but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like import_transactions (for batch creation) or update_transaction (for modifications). No explicit when-not or alternative advice is given.

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