Enter scheduled transaction

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the schedule advances to the occurrence after next, one-time schedules are deleted, and repeat calls create duplicate transactions (consistent with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true). What it doesn't cover is the failure mode for unsupported schedule types — whether the call errors out or silently does nothing.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its trigger, then the state changes, then the limitations, then the duplicate-call warning — a natural decision order. No sentence is redundant; the YNAB analogy and the 'twiceAMonth' exclusion each carry distinct information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and act: when to use it, what it mutates, what it deletes, and which inputs it rejects. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including date defaulting to today and memo/amount defaults) are already documented. The description only indirectly touches the date parameter via 'before its date' and says nothing about memo or amount overrides, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (enter a scheduled transaction early) and pins down the semantics with the YNAB 'Enter Now' analogy and 'before its date'. This clearly separates it from create_scheduled_transaction and update_scheduled_transaction, which act on the schedule itself rather than materializing an occurrence.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a bill is paid early or a paycheck arrives early') and explicit exclusions (split schedules and 'twiceAMonth' cannot be entered this way — use YNAB). It even warns that a second call enters a second occurrence, which preempts the most likely misuse.

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