update_transaction_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Update an existing transaction rule by ID.' It does not explain whether updates are partial or full replacements, side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency. The presence of 13 optional parameters implies complex behavior that is entirely undisclosed.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy, earning its place as a clear albeit minimal statement. However, it lacks substance needed for a complex tool, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness flaw.

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?

This tool has 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is just one line. It does not explain return values, update semantics, or the purpose of the many fields. A complex update operation requires far more context than this minimal description provides.

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 7% (only rule_id is described), and the description adds no meaning for the other 13 parameters. It fails to explain critical fields like account_ids, add_tag_ids, amount_value, review_status, or apply_to_existing. The 'by ID' phrase merely restates the rule_id parameter without adding depth.

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 updates an existing transaction rule by ID, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('transaction rule'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_transaction_rule and delete_transaction_rule by indicating it's for modifying existing rules.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or cases where create/delete would be more appropriate. The only hint is the 'by ID' qualifier, but no explicit context or exclusions.

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