ynab_update_scheduled_transaction

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the critical behavioral detail of the preview-commit safety mechanism, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 only two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second explaining the key safety pattern. Every word contributes value without any fluff.

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 with 15 parameters, the description provides the essential preview-commit guidance but lacks clarity on the dry_run parameter's role and does not cover common use cases or return information beyond the output schema.

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 27%, and the description does not explain individual parameters such as date, memo, dry_run, or payee_id. The only parameter mentioned is confirmation_token in context, which is insufficient to compensate for the low 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 explicitly states 'Update selected fields on a scheduled transaction,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from create, delete, get, and list tools among siblings.

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 outlines a clear preview-commit pattern: call without confirmation_token to preview, then with token to execute. This provides strong guidance on when to use each variant, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives.

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