update_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for revealing behavioral traits. It states that only provided fields are changed, indicating a partial update, which is key. However, it lacks details on side effects, authorization requirements, or error behaviors. This is adequate but could be more informative.

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 concise with two short sentences. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary information.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential update behavior but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites. It is sufficient for a simple update but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, when coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update fields on an existing transaction' which specifies both the action (update) and the resource (existing transaction). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_transaction' and 'delete_transaction'.

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 that this tool is used for updates and indicates that only provided fields are changed. While it gives clear context for when to use it, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives for other operations such as creating or deleting transactions.

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