split_transaction

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

The description discloses important behaviors: the sum constraint and the empty-array removal mechanism. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to state whether existing splits are replaced or merged, or what effects this has on the transaction's tags/categories.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, with no redundant filler. Every sentence adds meaningful 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the primary behavior but omits important details such as whether existing splits are replaced, return value, and any preconditions. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds the constraint that split amounts must sum to the original, and that an empty array removes splits. However, it does not describe the structure of each split element or the meaning of transaction_id beyond the obvious.

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 uses the specific verb 'split' with the resource 'transaction' (e.g., 'Split a transaction into multiple parts'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_transaction or create_transaction. The main action is unambiguous.

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?

It states the core use case (splitting a transaction) and provides a condition ('Sum of split amounts must equal original') and an alternative mode ('Pass empty splits array to remove splits'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to update_transaction.

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