cash_register_movements_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: direction is auto-set for deposits/withdrawals, direction required for kind=other, movementDate constraint against account opening date. It doesn't state side effects like whether this affects the cash register balance or requires permissions, but the disclosed field-level behavior is meaningful.

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 compact three-part statement covering purpose, direction logic, and the date constraint in two sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds only essential behavioral nuance. Slightly more could be said but nothing is wasteful.

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 create tool with 7 parameters (100% schema-covered), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key business rules (direction auto-derivation, date constraint) that the schema alone won't reveal. It could benefit from noting the absence of a cash account selection parameter (which appears omitted from the schema) and whether the ledger is updated automatically, but overall it's adequate for this complexity level.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the business logic: how direction is auto-derived for deposit/withdrawal, the relationship between kind and direction, and the movementDate constraint. This exceeds the baseline by clarifying inter-parameter semantics that the schema alone shows as separate enum fields.

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 clear verb+resource ('Record a manual cash movement') with specific kinds (deposit, withdrawal, miscellaneous). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cash_register_balance, cash_register_ledger, and cash_register_movements_list/update/delete by focusing on the 'create' action, though the tool name already conveys this.

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 on when to use it (recording manual cash movements) and explains the direction auto-setting logic for deposits/withdrawals vs other. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the create/update/list/delete sibling pattern makes usage obvious. A 5 would require explicit exclusions like 'use update for existing movements'.

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