createRecurringTransaction

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

The description merely states 'Create' which matches the annotation's readOnlyHint=false (write operation). However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as duplicate handling, prerequisites (e.g., existing transactionId), or side effects. The schema description adds 'automate the creation' but the tool description adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is too minimal and does not provide enough information to justify its brevity. It is front-loaded but lacks substantive content.

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 9 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how recurring transactions work, the relationship between transactionId and creating new, or what happens if startDate is omitted. The schema addresses some of this, but the tool description should provide a higher-level overview.

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 89%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a recurring transaction' clearly states verb+resource, but it is extremely brief and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'createTransaction' or 'editRecurringTransaction'. The schema description adds some context, but the tool description alone is vague regarding scope and uniqueness.

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 such as 'createTransaction' (for single transactions) or 'editRecurringTransaction' (for modifying existing ones). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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