Create Transaction

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that amounts are in dollars with positive/negative conventions, explains how split transactions work, and mentions '[1 API call]' which suggests a single operation. The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation), so the description provides additional implementation details without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise (three sentences) with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides essential behavioral context, and finally gives specific usage guidance for split transactions. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 no output schema, the description provides good context about the operation's behavior (dollar amounts, split transactions, API call count). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens when payee_name creates a new payee. Given the complexity of 12 parameters and mutation nature, some additional context would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it clarifies the dollar unit and sign convention for 'amount', and explains the relationship between 'category_id' and 'subtransactions' for splits. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Create a new transaction') and resource ('transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_transactions' (plural) or 'update_transaction'. It provides essential context about amounts in dollars with sign conventions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool for split transactions ('set category_id to null and provide subtransactions'), which helps differentiate from non-split scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., vs 'create_transactions' or 'import_transactions').

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