updateTransactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the lookup mechanism ('by id or import_id'), with no mention of side effects, whether fields are partially updated, response structure, or constraints like not providing both id and import_id. This is minimal disclosure 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that contains the essential purpose and identifier mechanism. No filler, every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having a complex nested schema and no annotations, the description provides only a minimal one-liner. It does not explain the batch usage context, contrast with the singular updateTransaction, or mention constraints like 'not both id and import_id' or 'import_id cannot be updated'. The output schema exists, but the overall context is under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 50% (plan_id has a description, transactions array does not). The description adds the requirement that each transaction be identified by either id or import_id, which is helpful but does not fully compensate for the missing array-level description. The nested schema already contains detailed field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Updates'), the resource ('multiple transactions'), and the key identifier mechanism ('by id or import_id'). The plural 'multiple' clearly differentiates it from the sibling updateTransaction (singular).

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 phrase 'multiple transactions' implies this tool is for batch updates, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus updateTransaction for a single transaction, or importTransactions for import-based operations. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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