update_scheduled_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the important behavior around the null-vs-empty-string distinction for end_date and notes, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites, whether changes take effect immediately vs on next occurrence, permission requirements, or what happens to scheduled time/amount fields not covered. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is partial coverage.

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 well-structured with clear per-parameter sections and a helpful explanation of the empty-string sentinel rationale. It's moderately lengthy but every section earns its place, particularly the null-vs-empty-string distinction which prevents a real failure mode. Slightly verbose in the sentinel explanation but justifiable given the subtlety.

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?

Given there's an output schema, return values needn't be documented. The tool has 4 params with rich three-state semantics that are thoroughly explained. Coverage is good for a guided-mutation tool. Minor gap: the 'enabled' parameter behavior is assumed obvious, and there's no mention of read-only considerations like ledger state dependencies. Overall solid completeness for the tool's complexity.

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 25% (only guid has a description in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does so excellently for end_date and notes, explaining the three-state convention with the empty-string sentinel and the rationale behind it. It also explains notes' semantics (affects future transactions only, existing untouched). Enabled is not elaborated but is self-explanatory. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 (Update) and resource (scheduled transaction) with a specific purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_scheduled_transaction or delete_scheduled_transaction, but the update semantic is evident from the name and context. The description focuses on what fields can be modified, making purpose reasonably clear.

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 detailed guidance on the end_date and notes three-state conventions, which is helpful usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_scheduled_transaction for new schedules, or when to use update_transaction for already-created transactions). Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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