replace_splits

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the operation is atomic and validates the sum equals the parent amount within tolerance. This provides valuable context beyond annotations, though it does not detail consequences like deletion of existing splits.

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 extremely concise with one sentence plus a validation note. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Atomically replace all splits') and includes essential constraints. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., transaction existence), and post-conditions. For a destructive mutation, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions transaction_id and splits array but does not explain individual item properties (amount, note, tags, etc.). The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it atomically replaces all splits on a transaction, with a validation condition. This is distinct from sibling tools like add_split, update_split, and delete_split, as it replaces all splits in one operation.

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 when to use (atomically replace all splits) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It contrasts with incremental split tools but lacks explicit guidance.

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