ImportTransactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context with 'Imported transactions arrive unapproved,' telling the agent the resulting state of the imported records and implying a follow-up ReviewUnapproved step. It does not discuss delays, failure modes when no linked accounts exist, or what the response contains, so it is helpful rather than exhaustive.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope. Every clause carries information: the resource, the account restriction, the UX analog, and the resulting transaction state.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented. For a non-read-only, open-world operation the description covers what it does and the state of the results, but it omits any note on prerequisites (linked accounts/direct import setup) or expected latency that an agent invoking a bank-sync operation might want.

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?

Only one parameter (plan_id) with 100% schema description coverage, including the 'last-used' default and a pointer to ListPlans. The description adds nothing about plan_id, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (import) plus resource (transactions) and narrows scope to the plan's linked direct-import accounts, which cleanly separates it from siblings like Ynab_CreateTransaction and Ynab_ListTransactions. The 'like pressing Import in the app' analogy makes the operation 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 app-analogy gives clear context for when this is the right call (pulling fresh transactions from bank-linked accounts rather than entering them manually), which differentiates it from CreateTransaction. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives, and never notes that the plan must have direct import configured.

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