create_transaction_group

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

Beyond the minimal annotation (idempotentHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: source transactions become hidden and are accessible as children, and the group cannot include split or recurring transactions. This adds useful context not present in annotations.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action and constraint, the second provides behavioral details and an additional constraint.

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 explains the tool's purpose, constraints, and side effects clearly. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return value (e.g., the created group's ID), which would be helpful 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?

Schema coverage is 86%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds context about the 'ids' parameter (specifying the range and effect on hiding), but does not add meaning for other parameters like notes or tag_ids beyond what the schema provides.

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 a transaction group') and the resource ('from 2-500 existing transactions'), with specific constraints (cannot include split or recurring transactions). It distinguishes this tool from siblings 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?

The description explains the behavioral consequence of hiding source transactions and how to access them via get_single_transaction with include_children=true. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like split_transaction or unsplit_transaction, though the context is implied.

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