ingest_revenue_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds cost/currency context but omits critical behavior: what happens on successful ingest, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or how meta and iso_ts affect behavior. The word 'Record' implies a write, but no side effects are 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 front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second clarifies pricing and source semantics. Every sentence provides meaningful information with no repetition or 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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain return values, prerequisites, and all parameters. It covers only amount and source at a high level, leaving meta and iso_ts undocumented and not mentioning what the caller receives after recording. The tool is simple but still incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'amount' (in user's home currency) and 'source' (manual vs automated), which is helpful. However, it leaves 'meta' and 'iso_ts' entirely unexplained, and the integration between source and Pro feature is mentioned but not the param value itself.

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: 'Record a revenue event.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_calendar_event by naming the domain (revenue). The currency note adds precision without ambiguity.

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 usage context: manual entry (source='manual') is free, while automated ingest from connectors is a Pro feature. This tells the agent when and how to invoke the tool depending on the source, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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