updateTransaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool mutates a transaction. It does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or important behaviors like split transaction limitations, which are present in the schema but absent from the description.

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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to fully support the tool's otherwise complex schema.

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?

Given the complexity of the transaction update semantics, the description is far too thin. It does not explain when to use updateTransaction over updateTransactions, how to handle split transactions, or what update fields are available; the rich input schema only partially compensates for this absence.

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 meaning: it does not mention plan_id, transaction_id, or the transaction payload. Schema description coverage is 67%, and while the nested transaction object is well-documented in the schema, the description itself fails to compensate for the partially covered parameters.

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 ('Updates') and a clear resource ('a single transaction'), so the agent knows what operation this tool performs. The word 'single' also helps distinguish it from the sibling updateTransactions, though it does not elaborate beyond that.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createTransaction, updateTransactions, or deleteTransaction. There is no mention of batch updates, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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