group_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the grouped transaction amount equals the sum of the original amounts and that ungroup restores original transactions. This goes beyond the schema by revealing underlying behavior, though side effects on original transactions are not fully 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?

The description is concise and well-structured with separate sections for group and ungroup actions. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with two actions and 8 parameters, the description covers the essential context: required vs optional parameters and the amount summation behavior. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but given the complexity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete. A perfect score would require more details on side effects.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to actions: ids/date/payee are required for group, id is required for ungroup. It also clarifies that category_id, notes, and tag_ids are optional for grouping. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 'Group or ungroup Lunch Money transactions', which clearly states the verb and resource. It further differentiates the two modes (group and ungroup) with specific instructions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like split_transaction.

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 explicit context for when to use each action: grouping requires ids, date, and payee; ungrouping requires the parent id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the action-specific guidance is clear enough.

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