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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 100-item cap and, critically, that deletes are 'restorable for 30 days' – context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence leads with the core action and cap, then the action branches, then format details. Every clause earns its place except the amount-format note, which is irrelevant to this schema.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the limit, the restore window, the action branches and date/format conventions. Only the ids parameter semantics remain unexplained.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the patch fields (category, account, date, note) and the edit/delete action, and explains date syntax 'YYYY-MM-DD' plus the YYYY-MM budget month. But it also documents 'amounts' as minor units, which is not a parameter of this tool, and says nothing about the ids array beyond the count.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: 'set their category, account, date or note (edit), or delete them' for 'up to 100 entries at once'. The bulk scope implicitly distinguishes it from the single-item siblings update_transaction and delete_transaction, though neither is named.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'up to 100 entries at once' framing, letting an agent infer this is for batch operations, and the edit-vs-delete branches are stated. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer bulk over single-item siblings or on prerequisites.

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