create_transaction_tagCreate a household transaction tag with a name and optional hex color, then return the new tag ID for organizing Monarch Money transactions.
Create a household transaction tag and return it with its new ID.
Args: name: Tag name. color: Hex color as #RRGGBB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | #19D2A5 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so safety is covered; the description correctly aligns by calling it a create. It adds a little context by revealing that the new tag is returned with its ID and that tags are household-scoped. It does not say what happens on a duplicate name, whether any permission is required, or what fields the returned tag has, which is a real gap for a mutation tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the action and return value, followed by a compact two-line Args block. No filler; every line carries 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?
For a two-parameter create tool with an output schema covering the return shape, this is near sufficient: action, scope, both parameters and the color format are present. The missing pieces are edge-case behavior (duplicate names) and sibling routing, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 carries the burden and does it reasonably: it names both parameters and gives the color format (#RRGGBB), which is meaningfully more than the bare 'string' schema. It omits the default color value and does not restate that name is required.
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 and resource ('Create a household transaction tag') and adds the outcome ('return it with its new ID'). The create verb cleanly separates it from the sibling read/apply tools get_transaction_tags and set_transaction_tags, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to create a new tag versus reuse an existing one from get_transaction_tags, nor how it relates to set_transaction_tags which applies tags to transactions. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.