categorize_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool it omits key traits: whether assigning overwrites an existing category, whether the change is reversible, required permissions, and any side effects on budget balances. Only the ID-resolution prerequisite is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action statement front-loaded and the prerequisite follow-up clearly subordinate. Every sentence 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?

Covers the essentials for invoking the tool (action + ID acquisition) and needs no output-schema explanation since none exists. But for an unannotated mutation tool, the missing overwrite/reversibility/permission context leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so all three parameters (including budget_id's 'last-used' default) are already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that the two required IDs must be looked up, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Assigns a category to a specific transaction.' The verb 'assigns' implicitly separates it from suggest_category/bulk_suggest_categories, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives real prerequisite guidance — resolve category_id via list_categories and transaction_id via list_uncategorized_transactions first — which is genuinely actionable. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. suggest_category/bulk_suggest_categories guidance and no exclusions or failure conditions.

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