Transactions Update Transaction Splits

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the vague claim that it 'may create or update Monarch data' adds little new information. The description does not disclose whether existing splits are replaced, merged, or validated, nor does it explain side effects beyond the generic warning.

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 definition is short, but the first sentence simply restates the tool name and the second is vague boilerplate. Neither sentence earns its place by adding concrete details that are not already visible in the title or annotations.

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 mutation tool with a nested splits object and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not explain how an update interacts with existing splits, what transaction_id must reference, or what output modes should be chosen, leaving important invocation decisions to inference.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, fields and output_mode are documented in the schema, but the required transaction_id and splits parameters are not described anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so an agent must infer that transaction_id identifies the parent transaction and that splits is the array to write.

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 first clause, 'Update transaction splits,' states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's core function clear and separating it from transaction-level operations like transactions_update_transaction. However, the added 'may create or update Monarch data' introduces ambiguity and no sibling tool is named, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus transactions_get_transaction_splits, transactions_unsplit_transaction, or transactions_update_transaction. The only implied context is the tool name itself; no alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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