Update Transactions

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the fact that updates are undoable, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or partial failure handling.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and all information is relevant to tool usage. It is easily parseable by an AI agent.

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 complexity of the input schema (many optional fields, subtransactions) and the lack of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how partial updates are handled. While annotations provide some safety cues, the description could be more informative for a mutation tool.

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 has 50% description coverage, meaning many parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'transactions', with the scope 'one or more existing transactions in a single call'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_transactions and delete_transactions.

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 mentions that each successful update is undoable, hinting at rollback capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch updates via other tools) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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