update_transaction

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

Discloses partial update behavior and field immutability constraints. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, success/error responses, or any other consequences of mutation. The absence of return value information is a notable gap.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and partial update. No redundant words. Every sentence provides critical information.

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?

Covers purpose, partial update, constraints, and auth. Lacks return value, error handling, or prerequisites beyond API key. For a 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, more detail on invocation results is needed for full completeness.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It implies that optional fields (date, fees, etc.) are updatable, but does not explain their meaning, format, or constraints (e.g., date format, fee range). The description adds little beyond the schema's sparse property names.

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?

Clearly states it updates an existing transaction by ID, with partial update semantics. Distinguishes from delete/re-create for card identity/type, which is a key differentiator from sibling tools like record_transaction and delete_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?

Explicitly says when to use (update transaction) and when not to (to change card identity/type, delete and re-create instead). Also specifies required auth (IWMM_API_KEY), providing clear prerequisites.

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