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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description credibly restates destructiveness, but the description adds the queued-request workflow and the 'preview first' safety guardrail, which are not present in annotations. It also conveys asynchronous queued behavior via requestId tracking.

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 sentence that front-loads the destructive nature, the primary behavior, and the required workflow. Every clause adds information without padding.

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 destructive annotation and lack of an output schema, the description covers the key operational context: split operation, preview requirement, and asynchronous requestId tracking. It could name the exact status endpoint, but the core workflow is complete enough for a competent agent.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra semantic value by connecting 'selected wallet movements' to the operations array and 'new classified transaction' to operationType, but does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource combination: 'move selected wallet movements out of one accounting transaction into a new classified transaction.' It clearly identifies the split action and distinguishes it from siblings like merge_transactions and update_transaction.

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 instruction to 'preview the grouping first' gives explicit sequencing and suggests using preview_transaction_classification before invoking this tool. The 'then track the queued requestId' also conveys the expected follow-up workflow, though alternative tools are not named explicitly.

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