Editar Transação

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the confirm parameter requirement, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits like whether updates are partial or full, or what happens if confirm is false.

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 very short (2 sentences) with no wasted words, but it lacks front-loading of critical information beyond the verb. Concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 14 parameters, a destructive operation, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain update behavior (partial vs full), return values, or prerequisites, relying too much on the schema and annotations.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings, but it only mentions the confirm flag. No details on id, date, kind, scope, etc., leaving the agent to infer from names and types alone.

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 'Edita transação' (Edits transaction), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_update or toggle_paid, but lacks detail on the scope of edit (e.g., partial update vs full replacement).

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 includes 'Exige confirm=true' as a requirement but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_update_transaction or batch_update_transactions. It fails to mention prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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