Preparar Edição de Transação

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it does not call the API, which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, the lack of parameter guidance slightly reduces usability.

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?

With 13 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., validation errors, prepared transaction object). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent unaware of the return value structure.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 13 parameters (e.g., id, date, kind, etc.). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool name 'despezzas_prepare_update_transaction' and description 'Monta e valida uma edição sem chamar a API' clearly indicate it prepares and validates a transaction edit without executing the update. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'despezzas_update_transaction' which actually calls the API.

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 states that it assembles and validates without calling the API, implying it should be used before an actual update. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., update_transaction or prepare_create_transaction), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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