Записать или изменить операцию

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

Annotations only indicate flags like readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: operation currency inherits from account currency, missing target_amount for cross-currency transfers causes incorrect balances, and planned operations are excluded from balances/statistics but included in forecasts. This goes beyond annotation signals and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver the core create/update distinction, currency inheritance rule, transfer requirements, and planned-operation behavior. Critical information is front-loaded and every sentence carries meaningful guidance without fluff.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the most complex cross-field rules: conditional required parameters, currency logic, and planned-operation semantics. Recurrence parameters are left to the schema, which is acceptable given their explicit self-contained descriptions. Minor gaps remain around response behavior and idempotency, but the essentials are present.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches several parameters: operation_id distinguishes create vs update, target_account_id and target_amount gain conditional transfer semantics, and is_planned gains balance/forecast implications. This adds real value beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 a dual purpose: creates an operation without operation_id and modifies it with operation_id. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like operations_delete and operations_confirm by explaining the create/update semantics and planned-operation confirmation flow.

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 conditional guidance: for TRANSFER, target_account_id is mandatory; when currencies differ, target_amount must be provided. It also tells the agent that planned operations are confirmed via operations_confirm, which is a useful alternative reference. It does not explicitly enumerate when to avoid using this tool, but the conditional rules effectively scope its usage.

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