Update Scheduled Transaction

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: false' correctly indicates this is a mutation tool, which aligns with the 'Update' action. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if only some fields are provided. However, it doesn't contradict the annotation, so it meets the baseline for having 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—just one sentence plus a technical prefix. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing scheduled transaction'), and there's no wasted text. However, the '[1 API call]' prefix might be unnecessary clutter for an AI agent focused on tool selection rather than implementation details.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations cover the mutation aspect, and the schema fully documents inputs, but the description doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects. For a tool with no output schema, more context on expected responses 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 11 parameters thoroughly, including descriptions, enums, and required fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'payee_id' and 'payee_name' might be alternatives) or provide examples. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing scheduled transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_scheduled_transaction' and 'delete_scheduled_transaction' by specifying it's for updating existing ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_transaction' in terms of scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a scheduled transaction ID from 'get_scheduled_transaction' or 'list_scheduled_transactions'), nor does it explain when to choose this over similar tools like 'update_transaction'. The '[1 API call]' prefix is technical but doesn't help with usage decisions.

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