Update a transaction

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and description adds partial update behavior with typical fields. No contradictions, and description adds context beyond annotations by explaining partial nature and common use.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and existence of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention the return value or prerequisites, but output schema covers the response.

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 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra (e.g., typical category_id+approved), but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already does the job.

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 is to partially update a transaction, with examples like categorize, approve, fix memo. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, list) by emphasizing the partial nature and typical use case.

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 provides context on when to use (partial updates) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. The typical case is helpful but no explicit when-not guidance.

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