split_transaction

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

The description discloses post-split behavior: parent is hidden and children are listed under it via get_single_transaction. It also states the sum constraint. Annotations only note non-idempotency, but description provides richer behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is three sentences, each sentence adds essential information: action and range, constraint, and behavioral effect. No unnecessary words. Front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the effect on parent and child relationship, and provides constraints. It does not describe the return value, but given the behavioral context, it is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions. The tool description adds the constraint that child count must be 2-500 and sum equals parent amount, but this is redundant with schema comments. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what schema already defines, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Split an existing transaction into 2-500 child transactions' with a specific verb, resource, and range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unsplit_transaction.

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 consequence of splitting (parent becomes hidden from get_transactions but accessible via get_single_transaction), providing clear when-to-use and behavioral outcomes. The presence of unsplit_transaction in siblings implies the reverse operation.

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