pos_ingest_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so well. It warns that the operation 'creates a footage overlay event with no documented rollback,' explains the confirmation boundary, calls out the idempotency guard, and states the POS write is never auto-retried. This is precisely the kind of safety-critical behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 dense but efficient: purpose, route, warning, and parameter semantics each occupy a short line. It front-loads the most important safety caveat and then progresses naturally through parameters. No sentence is filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what happens, how to invoke it, prerequisite lookup, required object shape, confirmation flag, idempotency, and irreversibility. Although the output schema exists, the tool's invocation and risk profile are fully explained, so no critical operational detail is missing.

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 must supply parameter meaning, and it does thoroughly. It explains host formats, tells the agent to source camera_id from list_cameras, enumerates the required transaction fields (type, externalId, amount), lists optional pass-through fields, and clarifies that confirm must be true. This far exceeds the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ingest a POS transaction overlay onto camera footage.' The route and Fabric proxy context further clarify the mechanism. It does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full 5, but there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear operational context: camera_id must be obtained from list_cameras, confirm must be true to execute, and behavior is governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a sibling alternative, but it provides strong usage preconditions and no misleading exclusions.

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