Import Transactions

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds that it triggers an import from connected financial institutions, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond the import (e.g., rate limits, network delays, or whether existing pending transactions are overwritten), so the added transparency is modest.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope; the second adds a clarifying analogy to the YNAB app. Every word 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the action and scope, but it does not indicate what the caller receives after the import (e.g., transaction details, count, or confirmation status). This is a meaningful gap because the absence of an output schema leaves the agent guessing about the return value.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for planId and budgetId, including defaulting and deprecation notes, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate given the schema completeness; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('imports'), a precise resource ('available transactions on all linked accounts for the plan'), and clarifies the action as equivalent to clicking Import in the YNAB app. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_transaction, get_transactions, and approve_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 description implies the tool is used to synchronize external bank data by comparing it to the app's Import button, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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