split_transaction

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

Annotations provide only idempotentHint: false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral trait beyond the schema: after splitting, the parent is hidden from get_transactions but remains accessible via get_single_transaction with a children array. This helps agents understand side effects, though it does not detail reversibility or failure modes.

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 sentences carry all essential information with no filler: the operation, the count range, the sum constraint, and the post-split behavior. The most important facts are front-loaded, and every clause 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?

The description, combined with the rich schema, covers the core requirements: range, amount equality, and the parent's post-split visibility. Since there is no output schema, a note about return values could be helpful, but it is not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The only notable omission is guidance about reversing a split via unsplit_transaction, which is available among siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents transaction_id and all child_transactions fields, including defaults and the sum constraint. The description restates the sum requirement but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema 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 clearly states the verb ('split'), resource ('existing transaction'), and scope ('into 2-500 child transactions'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool unsplit_transaction, so it misses the highest bar for sibling differentiation.

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 the tool—when an existing transaction needs to be split into multiple children—and gives important context about the post-split visibility of the parent. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative unsplit_transaction for reversal, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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