UpdateScheduledTransaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds a genuinely non-annotated behavior: partial-update semantics where omitted fields are preserved, which tells the agent it is not a full replace and that clearing values requires explicit empty strings (schema). No auth or error behavior is described.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the patch semantics are front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 fully documented 12-parameter schema plus annotations carry the heavy lifting. The remaining gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing against the many sibling update tools, which for a mutation with 12 options would have been worth a sentence.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including the payee_id-vs-payee_name precedence, the 'none' flag sentinel, and the split-transaction limitation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Change a scheduled transaction'), which cleanly separates it from the Create/Delete/List scheduled-transaction siblings. It stops short of naming the routing alternatives (e.g., CreateScheduledTransaction for new entries, UpdateTransactions for actuals), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Only the fields you pass change' qualifies how to call it, but the description never says when to choose this over CreateScheduledTransaction, DeleteScheduledTransaction, or UpdateTransactions, nor does it state any prerequisite such as first resolving the scheduled_transaction_id. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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