Skip Recurring Transaction

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

All annotations are false, so they provide no safety or behavioral hints. The description does not disclose side effects, such as whether skipping removes the occurrence from the schedule, marks it as done, or is reversible. It also does not describe the resulting state change. This is not a contradiction, but the mutation's consequences are largely undisclosed.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope efficiently, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the essential action and scope. However, sibling tools include markRecurringTransactionDone and deleteRecurringTransaction, and the description does not clarify how 'skip' differs from them or what consequences follow. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the single transactionId parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it remains at the baseline without enhancing understanding beyond the 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 uses a clear imperative verb ('Skip') with a specific resource ('a recurring transaction') and a temporal scope ('for the current period'). This identifies the core action well, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling 'markRecurringTransactionDone', leaving a small amount of ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like markRecurringTransactionDone, deleteRecurringTransaction, or editRecurringTransaction. The phrase 'for the current period' provides some implied context, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references are given.

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