update_transactions_bulk

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which is a key behavioral trait. The description does not contradict this, but also doesn't add much beyond the constraint that split/grouped transactions cannot be modified. It doesn't disclose any side effects (like whether updates are atomic) or how the response might be structured, which is a minor gap given the annotation already covers idempotency.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose and value (batch update, size limit), and the second gives a critical constraint (no split/grouped transactions). No fluff, front-loaded information, and easy to scan.

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 covers the essential context: batch update, size limit, required id, and disqualification of split/grouped transactions. Given there is no output schema, the description doesn't explain the response, which might be a slight gap, but for a batch update tool with idempotent annotation, this is sufficient. The missing information (e.g., atomicity) is not critical.

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%, meaning all parameters are described in the schema (e.g., 'id' required, 'tag_ids' and 'additional_tag_ids' mutually exclusive). The description adds the crucial requirement that at least one writable field must be included beyond id, which is not in the schema but is essential semantics. However, this is the only addition; the rest is already 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: updating multiple transactions in a single call, with a specific resource (transactions) and a clear batch capability (1-500). It also distinguishes itself from the singleton 'update_transaction' via the word 'multiple' and the batch size. The description is specific and differentiates from siblings like 'delete_transactions_bulk'.

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 explicitly notes that it cannot be used for split or grouped transactions, which is a clear exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (like 'update_transaction' for single updates), though the sibling list makes it obvious. The exclusion of split/grouped is a strong usage guideline, but lacking explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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