update_transaction

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

The annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the '[mutating]' tag is consistent but adds no new behavioral insight. The description does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or any behavior beyond what is inferred from the schema.

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 extremely short (one sentence plus a tag), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the structure fails to provide essential context.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating destructiveness, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the required 'id' parameter, valid value ranges, or how to construct valid inputs.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about any parameter. The agent must guess the meaning and format of fields like 'date', 'amount', and 'category' without any guidance.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a transaction'), making the primary function understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_transaction' or 'delete_transaction', and the name already conveys the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_transaction' or 'delete_transaction'. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when not to use it.

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