Patch transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behaviors: it only updates selected fields (preserving unspecified ones) and uses expected_revision for optimistic concurrency control. However, it does not detail error handling, side effects, or return value, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences deliver the essential purpose and the critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place; no redundant filler. The structure is front-loaded with the primary function and then the key prerequisite.

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?

The tool has a complex nested patch object with many subfields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too short to adequately guide an agent on constructing the patch correctly, especially the semantics of tag operations and other optional fields. It covers the core idea but is under-specified for this level of 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose and source of expected_revision, but does not explain transaction_id or the structure of the patch object, especially ambiguous nested fields like tags_add vs tags_set vs tags_remove. The parameter names in the schema provide some meaning, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 tool 'safely update selected transaction fields while preserving all unspecified fields', which is a specific verb ('update') plus resource ('transaction') with a clear scope (partial update). It distinguishes itself from create/delete tools and clearly indicates patch semantics.

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 instructs the agent to supply expected_revision from get/search to prevent lost updates, providing clear context on when and how to use the tool. It implies the prerequisite of fetching the transaction first, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'do not use for creation'), despite the context being strong.

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