add_directives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose the key side effect: the directives are appended and committed. 'One validated commit' adds useful behavior around atomicity/validation, though it does not go into authorization, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence and the usage scenario in the second. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema, and a clear scope statement, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select it. The main gaps are parameter-level detail and explicit comparison to sibling tools, but these are minor for batch-selection purposes.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain how beancount_text or message map to the call. The tool purpose strongly implies beancount_text contains the directives, but the 'message' parameter is completely undocumented and the input format for beancount_text is left to inference.

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 specific action ('Append arbitrary Beancount directives') and the commit behavior, and distinguishes the tool from siblings by listing the directive types it handles in batch ('opens, balances, transactions and prices'). This makes its purpose clear and separable from add_transactions/open_accounts.

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 explicitly says 'Use for batch setup' and gives the concrete scenario ('set up my whole situation'). It implies when to prefer this over single-purpose siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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