freeagent_explain_transaction

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: re-attaching replaces an existing attachment, the server reads/encodes filePath or fileUrl, large fileBase64 payloads are unreliable, and markExplained should be set only with confirmation. These details match the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint=false annotations, with no contradictions.

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 uses clear sections (main actions, RECEIPTS, SAFETY) and bullet, front-loading the primary purpose before digging into attachment workflow. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—no filler—and the structure lets the agent rapidly locate the relevant guidance.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to resolve the required explanationId, how to handle file options, how to source receipts, and when it is safe to approve. It also directs to relevant sibling tools where appropriate. The lack of explicit return-value documentation is acceptable because no output schema exists and the primary responsibility is to perform the mutation.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has meaning. The description enriches that meaning with prioritizing filePath/fileUrl over fileBase64, explaining how fileName defaults when using filePath, and clarifying the safety condition on markExplained. This is above baseline but some repetition of schema text exists.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Approve or update a FreeAgent bank transaction explanation' and immediately lists the three core actions it supports. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like freeagent_list_transactions by directing the agent to obtain explanationId from that list tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use workflows: approving marked-for-review transactions, changing categories/descriptions, and attaching receipts. It also gives conditional guidance ('Only set markExplained=true when you have a confirmed receipt attached or the user has approved it') and cross-tool references, such as using freeagent_list_categories for the category path.

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