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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'destructively' while adding valuable behavioral details: the operation is queued and returns a requestId to track, and a preview should be run first. This goes beyond the structured annotations by explaining the async, destructive workflow.

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?

A single dense sentence conveys the core action, the destructive nature, the required preview step, and the async tracking behavior. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase 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 destructive, async, multi-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is merged, the need for preview, and the queued requestId to follow. It could be more complete by naming the exact status-tracking tool or by listing when not to use it, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds some semantic framing by linking 'wallet movements' to the operations array, 'target transaction' to transactionId, and 'reclassify' to operationType, but it does not add material detail beyond the 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 names a specific action ('combine' and 'reclassify') with a precise resource scope: wallet movements from several accounting transactions into one target transaction. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like split_transactions and update_transaction, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.

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 implies the intended workflow: preview the grouping first, then track the queued requestId, which gives meaningful guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or name excluded cases, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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