Изменить операцию

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value by disclosing partial-update semantics ("только переданные поля"), but says nothing about what destruction means here, whether balance recalculation occurs when amount/account changes, or any validation/auth requirements.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the partial-update rule. Dense but without filler; the category clause is slightly compressed to the point of being hard to parse.

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?

A seven-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and destructive semantics needs more than a partial-update note. Several parameters are undefined in both schema and description, so an agent cannot confidently supply account, currency, or date values.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies only category (category for an expense vs. source for an income), leaving account, currency, date, and amount semantics — including the shared string-or-number reference type — undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Изменить расход или доход по id") and scopes it to expenses/incomes, which separates it from add_expense, add_income, and delete_transaction. It stops short of explicitly ruling out transfers or currency exchanges, which are covered by sibling add_* tools.

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 phrase "по id (только переданные поля)" implies this is a partial update of an existing transaction, which is useful implied usage. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over delete_transaction plus re-adding, nor on prerequisites or whether transfers can be edited here.

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