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

Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description reveals the crucial behavioral trait: this tool only creates a pending proposal and nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called. It also discloses that there is no UI button or proposal card in this context, which explains an otherwise surprising workflow. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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 dense but not bloated; every major rule earns its place, and the critical pending-proposal caveat is repeated at the end as an MCP note, which is mildly redundant. The structure is well organized: purpose first, then workflow, exclusions, field semantics, and the final warning. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 10-parameter tool with a nontrivial partial-update and confirmation workflow, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: the pending nature, the required follow-up, the types of transactions allowed, the field-passing rules, and the return value. With no output schema present, saying it returns a proposal id is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter in detail; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds important cross-parameter semantics not present in the schema: only pass fields the user explicitly asked to change, omit everything else, and pass null only when explicitly clearing a field. That raises the score above baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource: propose an edit to an existing income or expense transaction. It also distinguishes itself from nearby tools by stating it only works on income/expense transactions and that transfers and asset trades are out of scope. The return outcome (a proposal id) and follow-up action are also clearly stated.

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 when to use the tool (editing existing past income/expense transactions) and when not to (transfers and asset trades must be edited on the Transactions page). It also gives field-level usage rules: only pass changed fields, and use null only to clear a field. The confirmation workflow with confirm_proposal is spelled out.

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