annotate_transaction

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says 'Add a note...' It does not clarify whether the note appends to existing notes or replaces them, whether the operation is reversible or idempotent, or what authorization or response behavior to expect. This leaves the agent uncertain about the mutation's exact effects.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and target in a single clear phrase, so 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 simple two-parameter tool, the input model is clear and fully schematized. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves gaps about the mutation behavior and expected result, making it workable but not fully self-sufficient.

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% and both `transaction_id` and `notes` include meaningful descriptions, so the schema already documents the parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a note to a transaction's metadata'), so an agent knows exactly what this operation does. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that list/get/search transactions or move money into/out of pots.

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 use case: use this tool when a note needs to be attached to a transaction's metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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