update_transaction

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, is open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description doesn't contradict these, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It implies mutation but doesn't detail effects like overwriting fields or handling partial updates, though annotations cover key safety aspects.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 the complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral nuances, or output, relying heavily on annotations and schema, which are incomplete for parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it provides no information about any of the 13 parameters. The description doesn't mention what fields can be updated (e.g., amount, date, category_id) or their purposes, leaving parameters undocumented beyond the schema.

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 'Update an existing transaction' clearly states the verb and resource, but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_transactions' or 'update_category'. It specifies the action but lacks detail about what aspects of a transaction can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_transactions' (plural) or 'create_transaction'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing transaction_id, or context for when this update is appropriate versus other operations.

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