Record statement balance

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

The description discloses mutability ('record or correct', 're-recording updates it'), consistent with destructiveHint=true. It adds context about idempotency per date, which is valuable beyond the annotation. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, idempotency, and currency. It does not mention response format or failure cases, but the annotations provide destructiveHint. Slightly incomplete for a mutation tool, but adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds high-level context: 'Amounts in AUD' for current_balance, and 'statement's closing balance and closing date' mapping to parameters. This adds value 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 the verb 'Record (or correct)' and the resource 'bank statement's closing balance as at a date'. It specifies a key constraint: one snapshot per date with update semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reconcile_financial_year or record_cash_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 clear context for when to use: for year-end balance reconciliation, using the statement's closing balance and date. It implicitly advises against alternatives by stating the specific purpose, but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings.

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