Manage funds

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: money moves immediately ('no hash'), and destructive actions require confirm=true and explicit user consent. The irreversibility/immediacy and the confirmation protocol are the substantive additions; no auth or rate-limit detail is given.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: resource first, then action semantics, then the destructive precondition. The fragment style ('no hash') is slightly cryptic, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a multi-action mutation tool, the safety protocol and action mapping are present; the remaining gap is the semantics of amount/query and the account_id requirement per action.

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 fully explains the action enum, the confirm flag, and how to treat account_id, but says nothing about query, amount, or additional_comment (e.g., amount format, whether add requires account_id), leaving three of six parameters unexplained.

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?

Names the resource (funds) and maps each enum action to a meaning: list|search are lookups, add is a top-up request, transfer|withdraw move money immediately. That is far more specific than the title, though it does not differentiate itself from adjacent money/account siblings like list_accounts or get_account.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use mapping per action and a hard precondition for the destructive branches (confirm=true plus an explicit user yes). It also instructs 'Never guess account_id', an actionable guardrail. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool to use instead.

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