ynab_create_scheduled_transaction

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the write safety preview mechanism. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are not contradicted. It does not specify idempotency guarantees for the execute step, but the preview-token pattern implies safe retry.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, the first stating purpose and key parameter advice, the second explaining the critical preview workflow. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, 3 required, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits required parameters, frequency enum details, date format, and output behavior. The open world hint is not explained. The output schema may compensate, but the description fails to guide the agent on required vs optional fields or error handling.

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 29%, but the description adds crucial context for amount fields (prefer amount_decimal) and confirmation_token (short-lived, from preview). However, many parameters (date, memo, payee_id, etc.) remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a recurring scheduled transaction.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ynab_create_transaction (one-time) and ynab_create_receipt_split_transaction through the focus on recurring transactions. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on using amount_decimal over amount_milliunits and explains the two-step preview-execute workflow. It advises calling without confirmation_token to preview, then executing with the token. However, it does not contrast with one-time transaction tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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