transaction_categorizeSet or clear the category on transactions by id, for a one-off no rule is worth writing for. Every id is checked first, so one unknown id refuses the whole call. category_rules matches by text instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Transaction ids, as returned by transactions_list or transactions_search | |
| category | Yes | Category to set. Pass an empty string to clear it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Every id is checked first, so one unknown id refuses the whole call.' This discloses an all-or-nothing validation behavior that is not visible in the schema or annotations. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the all-or-nothing behavior is stated, and the sibling distinction is given. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It explains the one-off use case, the validation behavior, and the alternative. It doesn't describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the tool is a simple mutation, so this is a minor gap.
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 both parameters. The description adds the semantic that 'category' can be cleared by passing an empty string, which is already in the schema ('Pass an empty string to clear it'). The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 states a specific verb ('Set or clear'), a specific resource ('category on transactions by id'), and explicitly contrasts itself with category_rules ('matches by text instead'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool category_rules, which is the main alternative for categorization.
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 this tool: 'for a one-off no rule is worth writing for.' It also names the alternative (category_rules) and the condition that selects it ('matches by text instead'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance.
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.