updateScheduledTransaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a transaction is updated, with no information about partial vs. full replacement, validation constraints, side effects, permissions, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage detail.

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 input schema is rich and an output schema exists, but the description still omits crucial context for a mutation operation: when to use it, what update model applies, and any constraints or side effects. For a nested-object tool with no annotations, this is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With schema description coverage at 67%, the schema documents plan_id, scheduled_transaction_id, and the nested scheduled_transaction object, but the description does not clarify update semantics, required fields, or special values like 'last-used' or 'default' for plan_id.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Updates a single scheduled transaction.' It clearly identifies the target resource and the singular nature of the operation, which helps distinguish it from create/delete scheduled transaction tools. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not explicitly differentiate from related update tools like updateTransaction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createScheduledTransaction, deleteScheduledTransaction, or updateTransaction. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or prerequisites for using it.

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