ynab_update_transaction

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by mentioning the dry_run parameter for previewing changes. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior for unspecified fields. No annotation contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It is slightly verbose but not excessively so; every sentence adds information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description mentions 'Returns: updated transaction with updated_balance.' However, it omits account_id and flag_color parameters present in the schema, and provides no guidance on interactions between payee_name and payee_id. Parameter count is high (13), so gaps exist.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including budget_id default behavior, amount units (milliunits), date format, payee_name/payee_id as alternatives, and dry_run preview. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Update fields on an existing YNAB transaction.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from create, delete, and batch update 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ynab_update_transactions. It is implied that this is for single transactions, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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