skip_transaction

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states that the tool marks a transaction and rejects proposed matches, revealing mutation behavior. However, it does not mention side effects like impact on existing receipts, reversibility (unskip_transaction exists), or required permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, no redundant information. First sentence states the core action, second provides context and examples. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main action and use cases. It lacks a note about reversibility (especially given unskip_transaction sibling) and does not hint at the response format, but these are minor omissions for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds examples for the 'reason' parameter but essentially duplicates the enum list from the schema. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'skip' matching the tool name, defines the action as marking a transaction as 'no receipt needed', and provides concrete examples (bank fees, salary, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like confirm_match and reject_match by focusing on scenarios where receipt is not required.

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?

Description suggests when to use (e.g., bank fees, salary, internal transfers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like confirm_match or reject_match. The mention of 'rejects any proposed matches' gives context but lacks exclusion criteria.

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