Edit transactions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the constraint that type cannot change, but it doesn't expand on the destructive nature or preview behavior beyond what dry_run's schema description says. It does not contradict 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?

Three compact sentences front-load the operation, list editable fields, state the immutability constraint, and route to list_transactions. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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-param, single-object mutation with nested item fields, the description covers fields, null behavior, transfer nuances, and the immutability rule. It lacks specifics on the destructive/idempotent behavior implications, but annotations and dry_run's schema description fill those gaps.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description compensates by naming transfer-specific fields (to_account, to_amount) and explaining null semantics for category ('null = uncategorized'). It doesn't restate id/date/amount syntax, but the field-level semantics it supplies exceed the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change one or more existing transactions') and immediately enumerates editable fields, distinguishing it from create_transactions, delete_transactions, and restore_transactions. It also names exactly what cannot change (type) and points to delete/re-create as the alternative.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use list_transactions to find ids, which is the key prerequisite for invocation, and it tells the agent to delete and re-create when the type must change. It doesn't state when to prefer this tool over create_transactions for bulk edits, but the guidance is materially useful.

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