Update an existing transaction's details, including description, category, and tags, to keep financial records accurate and organized.
Update an existing transaction. Supports updating description, category_name, and other fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| category_name | No | Category name to assign to the transaction. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation and supported fields, without disclosing behavior such as whether it's a partial update, what happens if the transaction is not found, whether it returns the updated transaction, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and reads clearly, making it easy to scan.
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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs full), error handling, or what a successful call returns. An agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 25% (only category_name has a description). The description mentions 'description, category_name, and other fields' but doesn't clarify tags or the 'other fields' beyond a vague reference. It adds minimal value beyond the schema and fails 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing transaction'), and mentions specific fields it supports (description, category_name, and other fields). This differentiates it from create and delete operations, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools. The 'existing' wording clarifies it modifies an existing record.
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 implies usage when an existing transaction needs modification, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_transaction or delete_transaction. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.