create_transaction_group

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: source transactions are hidden from get_transactions and become accessible via the new group's children with include_children=true. It also states a constraint (cannot include split or recurring transactions) that is not visible in the schema. The only annotation is idempotentHint=false, which the description does not contradict, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and constraints, then adds the behavioral consequence and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (7 params, 3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what happens to source transactions, how to access them later, and what inputs are invalid. It does not mention error cases or whether the operation is reversible, but the idempotentHint=false annotation and the clear constraints make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context for the 'ids' parameter by explaining the 2-500 range and the behavioral consequence of grouping, but it does not add much beyond the schema for date, payee, notes, status, tag_ids, or category_id. The category_id inheritance behavior is already in the schema description, so the description adds minimal extra value.

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 specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('transaction group'), and a precise scope ('from 2-500 existing transactions'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that source transactions are hidden from get_transactions and accessible via the new group's children, which clearly differentiates it from create_transactions and other transaction tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when grouping existing transactions. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Cannot include split or recurring transactions'), which helps an agent avoid invalid calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for creating individual transactions or splitting/unsplitting, though the sibling list makes this inferable.

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