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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description is consistent with them; it adds the ownership prerequisite, which is useful context. However, it never explains the destructive aspect or whether omitted fields are left unchanged, so it adds only modest value beyond the structured hints.

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 with the action and scope front-loaded and the review-queue insight parenthetically attached; no filler or restated name/title content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership restriction, mutable fields, and the review-queue workflow, while annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics (what happens to fields omitted from the call).

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 burden, and it names five of the six parameters (businessOrPersonal, category, description, amount, date), with id implied by the ownership constraint. It adds no format detail (date pattern, amount bounds, allowed category values), so it compensates well but not completely.

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 gives a specific verb ('Change a transaction') tied to the resource and constrains it to records 'the signed-in person owns', then enumerates exactly which fields are mutable (business/personal flag, category, description, amount, date). This clearly separates it from add_transaction and list_transactions without needing 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?

It supplies real usage context: marking business/personal 'is how the review queue is cleared', which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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