Update Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: importer markers embedded in the stored description are preserved across the update, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 sentences, no padding, front-loaded with the core action and fields before the marker-preservation caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a metadata-mutation tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete. The one real gap is whether unspecified fields are left untouched or cleared (partial vs full update) — relevant for an idempotent update — but otherwise an agent has what it needs.

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%, so both id and data are already documented in the schema, including the allowed metadata field names and the 150-char limit. The description's field list largely restates the schema; only the marker-preservation note adds meaning. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (transaction), scoped to metadata fields, and enumerates the editable fields (bank reference, counterparty name, account number, description, payment reference). This distinguishes it from state-changing siblings like confirm_transaction or invalidate_transaction, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list makes clear this edits an existing transaction's metadata, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over confirm_transaction, invalidate_transaction, or delete_transaction, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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