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

The description discloses that recategorizing automatically creates a Category Rule for the client, a behavioral side effect beyond what annotations provide. It also explains the batch behavior with per-item error handling and the response structure. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds significant value.

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 detailed but not overly verbose. It front-loads the purpose, then covers parameter structure, side effect, and response format. Minor improvement could be clearer section breaks, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity of a batch update with side effects and the lack of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the response shape, the side effect of creating a Category Rule, and where to get parameter values. This fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description provides critical context: it explains that items must be an array of objects with transaction_id and category_id, and tells the agent where to get these IDs (openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories). This is valuable beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Corrects the category of one or more transactions' and specifies the resource (transactions) and HTTP method (PATCH). It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining how to obtain the required IDs from openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories.

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 when to use the tool: 'to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward'. It also implicitly warns about the side effect of creating a Category Rule. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., if the user wants to avoid creating rules).

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