create_transaction_group

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

The description reveals that source transactions become hidden from get_transactions and are accessible via the group's children, which is a behavioral side effect not captured by annotations or schema. It also states restrictions on split/recurring transactions, adding significant transparency.

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 well-structured sentences: first defines core purpose, second explains behavioral effect, third states restrictions. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value.

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 description covers key behavioral aspects and restrictions. While it lacks return value details and error scenarios, the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool make this acceptable. It is adequately complete for an agent.

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?

With 86% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining constraints for ids (2-500, no split/recurring) and inheritance behavior for category_id. It does not repeat schema details but enhances understanding.

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 (create) and resource (transaction group) with specific constraints (2-500 existing transactions). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_transactions and delete_transaction_group.

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 on when to use (grouping existing transactions) and restrictions (cannot include split or recurring). It also explains how to access the group's children, but lacks explicit alternatives for when not to use.

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