Edit Transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the API requires 'full transaction payload on every edit' (important constraint), mentions fetching current values first (workflow guidance), and specifies ID sources. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens to omitted optional fields like 'note' or 'with' during updates.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and key requirement, the second provides important implementation guidance. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the requirements.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core update operation and critical API constraints, but doesn't explain return values, error handling, or what constitutes a successful edit. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it should provide more complete behavioral context.

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%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds some semantic context beyond the schema: it explains why walletId, categoryId, amount, and date are required ('API requires the full transaction payload'), clarifies categoryId should be 'global category ID from get_all_categories or from an existing transaction response', and mentions fetching current values first. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing transaction' with specific mention of required fields (walletId, categoryId, amount, date). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_transaction' by focusing on editing existing records, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'edit_category' or 'edit_wallet' beyond the resource type.

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 clear usage guidance: 'fetch the transaction with get_transactions first if you need the current values' and mentions using 'get_all_categories' for category IDs. It implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for updates) versus 'add_transaction' (for creation), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with all alternatives like 'delete_transaction'.

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