update_transaction

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false: it discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated, others remain unchanged') and states the return value. This is valuable for a mutation tool, though it doesn't cover permissions or error cases.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences: purpose, update semantics, and prerequisite/return. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderately complex tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, how to obtain IDs, and return value. With output schema present, this is 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description enhances this by explaining the overarching update rule, which directly affects how all parameters behave (partial update). It also adds a critical hint for transaction_id to use list_transactions. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'transaction', clearly stating it targets an existing transaction in Actual Budget. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_transaction and delete_transaction by emphasizing 'existing'.

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?

It provides clear context by explaining that only provided fields are updated and directs users to list_transactions for obtaining IDs. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the 'existing' wording implies it's for updates rather than creation.

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