create_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only states the action, omitting any details about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. This is critically insufficient for a creation tool.

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 a single, grammatically correct sentence. However, it is too brief to be useful; conciseness should not come at the cost of essential information. It could be expanded while remaining concise.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the concept of a 'manually managed asset', how it fits into the Lunch Money system, or what the return value would be. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the names and types are the only clues. The description adds no explanation of parameter meanings, constraints, or relationships. For example, 'balance' is required but its format or default currency is not clarified.

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 ('create') and the resource ('manually managed asset'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_category' which deal with different entities. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'manually managed asset' in Lunch Money.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used. This lack of context forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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