create_transaction_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens after creation (e.g., whether the rule applies retroactively). For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence that conveys the core purpose and optional actions. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every phrase earns its place. There is zero waste.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, making it a complex creation operation. The description is minimal and does not explain the overall rule creation workflow, expected return value, or interactions with other tools. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks the broader behavioral context needed for a tool of this 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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed explanations. The tool description adds a high-level grouping ('Merchant pattern → category, with optional tag, hide, and review actions') that maps to parameters like merchant_criteria_value, set_category_id, add_tag_ids, hide_from_reports, and review_status. This provides context but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a transaction auto-categorization rule with a specific action (merchant pattern → category) and optional tags, hide, and review actions. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_transaction_rule or delete_transaction_rule.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating new rules, which is evident from the verb 'create' and the resource. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list includes update/delete rule tools, making the creation use-case obvious.

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