Update transaction

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

The description reveals a critical behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it only updates the supplied fields, implying a partial update that leaves other fields untouched. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) without contradicting them, though it does not discuss side effects or permission requirements.

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 that front-loads the key constraint ('only the supplied transaction fields') and then lists the fields. It is concise, scannable, and contains no filler or repetition.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to make a correct call. It clarifies the update scope but does not detail return values or error behaviors; however, these are partially covered by the output schema, reducing the burden on the description.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description compensates by naming all updateable fields in plain language (category, merchant, goal, amount, date, notes, report visibility, review state), mapping loosely to schema properties like category_id, merchant_name, goal_id, hidden_from_reports, needs_review. It adds semantic meaning beyond bare parameter names, though the mapping is not exact.

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 clearly specifies the action 'Update' and the resource 'transaction', then enumerates the exact fields that can be updated. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_transaction, delete_transaction, or get_transaction, making its purpose unambiguous.

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: use this when you need to modify specific fields of an existing transaction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_transaction for new transactions or delete_transaction for removals, leaving the 'when not to use' implicit.

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