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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: it overrides automatic categorization and teaches Pluggy by creating a Category Rule for future similar transactions. It also notes that per-item errors do not fail the whole batch. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and the description adds significant context.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing side effects and return shape. Each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 complexity (batch update with side effects) and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return shape, error handling, and learning behavior. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's complete behavior.

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 carries the full burden. It explains that items is an array of { transaction_id, category_id }, with transaction_id from openfinance_list_transactions and category_id from openfinance_list_categories. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Corrects the category of one or more transactions (PATCH /transactions/:id).' It specifies the verb 'corrects' and resource 'transactions', and distinguishes from sibling list/get tools by indicating it is an update operation.

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 explains that transaction_id comes from openfinance_list_transactions and category_id from openfinance_list_categories, and recommends using this tool to 'fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, it provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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