update_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying a write operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any impacts on related data. This is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, fully front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. It is maximally concise and well-structured for a simple action, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, exceptions, related operations, or the effect on the transaction's associations. The schema covers parameter semantics, but contextual behavior is entirely absent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'New date (YYYY-MM-DD)', 'Comma-separated labels'). The description adds no parameter information, but since the schema fully documents parameters, 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 'Update a PocketSmith transaction' uses a specific verb (update) and a specific resource (transaction), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_transaction, delete_transaction, and update_transaction_account. The resource is unambiguous and the action is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It is purely a definition, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and tool name.

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