update_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what fields can be updated and describes the batch capability, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether updates are destructive to unmentioned fields, whether invalid IDs cause failures, permission requirements, or what the return value looks like. It doesn't mislead, but it adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a clearly separated workflow section. It's a bit verbose with repeated listing of updateable fields, and the Arguments section partially duplicates the input schema (though justified since schema coverage is 0%). Still, the structure with headers and example is well-organized and earns most of its length.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and a 0% schema-coverage, the description does substantial work: it explains all parameters, provides a usage workflow, and a concrete batch example. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Gaps include missing clarification on error/validation behavior and partial-update semantics, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does: each parameter is given a brief semantic explanation (transaction_id sets which record, category_id assigns category from list_categories, type constrains to expense/income, date uses YYYY-MM-DD format). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. The items-parameter explanation is notably richer, describing its structure and batch purpose. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether batch operations are atomic.

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 resource (existing transactions by ID), and explicitly enumerates the updatable fields (category_id, amount, description, type, or date). It also describes both single and batch modes, which distinguishes it well from sibling mutation tools like delete_transaction and add_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 explicitly details when to use the tool, including the batch mode via 'items' and the systematic categorization workflow example. It names list_categories as the source for category_id, providing concrete integration context. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs. delete/add siblings, but the batch workflow example provides strong usage guidance.

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