Update the name or note of an existing transaction group. To change group membership use add_transactions_to_group or remove_transactions_from_group. Requires finance:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the transaction group to update | |
| name | No | New display name for the group | |
| note | No | New note for the group (pass null to clear) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / note / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 500,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load; it does disclose the required scope and the fact that only metadata (name/note) is touched, which prevents accidental membership changes. It does not state whether omitted fields stay unchanged, what errors look like for a bad UUID, or whether the call is idempotent, leaving some behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constrained scope, followed by the redirect and the permission requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?
For a small three-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and authorization. It stops short of describing what comes back (no output schema exists) and whether a no-op body is rejected, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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%, including the null-clears-the-note semantics and the UUID pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces which two fields are in play but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update ... an existing transaction group') and immediately bounds the mutation surface to name or note. That scoping distinguishes it from the many other transaction-group siblings such as add_transactions_to_group and delete_transaction_group.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for the most likely confusion: 'To change group membership use add_transactions_to_group or remove_transactions_from_group.' It also names the precondition (finance:write scope), so the agent knows when the call is legal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.