Create Scheduled Transactions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds significant behavioral details: creations are undoable, each costs one API call, and there is no batching. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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, each earning its place: first sentence states the core action, second adds key behavioral constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (array of required fields, multiple frequencies), the description covers the most critical behavioral aspects (undoability, API cost, bulk limitation). Missing details like error handling or response format are not essential for a creation tool but would slightly improve completeness. Still, it is largely adequate.

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 50% (budget_id has a description, transactions array does not). The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema itself is fairly detailed for the nested items, but the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates one or more scheduled transactions. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_transactions' (non-scheduled) and 'update_scheduled_transactions'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides useful context: each creation is undoable, costs one API call, and there is no bulk endpoint. It implicitly advises that to create multiple scheduled transactions, separate calls are needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-recurring transactions).

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