Set transaction splits

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and not destructive to the parent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it replaces all existing split legs, requires amounts to sum to the parent, and that an empty array removes splits. This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Two extremely concise sentences with no filler. The core action and key constraints are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with a clear action, the description covers all necessary operational details: replacement semantics, amount summation, and how to remove splits. The output schema handles return values, and annotations cover safety/idempotency. 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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates significantly for the 'splits' parameter by stating the summing constraint and the empty-array removal use case. It does not repeat schema descriptions for transaction_id, but that parameter is already well described in 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 specific verb ('Replace') and a specific resource ('all split legs on a transaction'), clearly distinguishing this from read-only tools like get_transaction_splits or other transaction updates. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 explains the behavior and includes a special case for removing splits via an empty array, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_transaction or get_transaction_splits. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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