Transactions Update Transaction

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which reinforces the write nature and gives domain context, but it does not explain side effects, partial-update behavior, or what 'create' might mean in an update context.

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 description is very short and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. The second sentence adds a small amount of behavioral context, though it is somewhat vague. No words are wasted, but the brevity borders on underspecification.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which fields can be updated, whether the update is partial or full replacement, what the response contains, or what 'may create' means. An agent cannot understand the tool's behavior or return shape from this definition alone.

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 only 13%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. With 16 parameters, including date, amount, category_id, tag_ids, merchant_name, and review_status, the description does nothing to explain their meaning or update semantics. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update transaction.' It is unambiguous about the operation being performed and distinguishes it from create/delete/split operations. However, it is brief and does not explicitly mention that the update targets an existing transaction by ID, though the required transaction_id parameter makes that clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transactions_create_transaction or transactions_update_transaction_splits. The description implies a basic update use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing among sibling tools.

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