Apply rule actions to transactions

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: actions are applied UNCONDITIONALLY with no condition evaluation, wrong ids are silently changed rather than skipped, edits are bulk-capped at 500 per call, changes cannot be undone via this server, and values are ids not names. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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 write-vs-preview relationship and the 'SAVE' behavior are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact. It is dense and runs a bit long, but almost no sentence is redundant; minor trimming possible without loss.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return payload (updated ids plus a 'missing' list for ids that did not exist), and covers the write semantics, limits, reversibility, and id provenance an agent needs to call this safely.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that action values are ids rather than names (reported as toId by the preview), that actions share create_rule's format (pointing to describe_rule_schema), and restates the 500 cap. This compensates for the enum-heavy action object being otherwise opaque.

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 ('apply rule actions to transactions and SAVE') and positions itself precisely as 'the write half of preview_rule_effects', which immediately distinguishes it from the preview sibling. An agent knows exactly what this does and how it relates to the read-only counterpart.

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?

Explicit sequencing ('preview first, then pass the transaction ids it returned'), explicit source constraint (only ids from preview_rule_effects or search_transactions, never self-assembled), and an explicit warning about unconditional application. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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