Update transaction

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: only supplied fields are modified (safe partial update) and the existing receipt is preserved rather than replaced, which reassures the agent about mutation side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two behavioral constraints that matter most. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral unknowns (partial update, receipt retention). The approval gate is left to the schema field description, which is adequate; nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter including the confirm approval gate and the empty-string unlink convention is already documented in the schema. The description paraphrases the link/unlink behavior but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('the property or category linked to a bank/manual transaction'), naming exactly which fields are mutable. The scope qualifier 'bank/manual transaction' plus the receipt sentence distinguishes it from siblings like attach_transaction_receipt and remove_transaction_receipt.

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 clearly implies when to use it ('Only the fields you pass change' = patch-style edits) and explicitly rules out a neighboring use case ('this does not upload or remove a receipt'), routing the agent to the receipt siblings. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state prerequisites such as the approval/confirm requirement.

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