spreedly_transaction_update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool requires a transaction_token and only modifies metadata, which provides some context but does not significantly expand beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word provides value, and there is no unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (metadata update with no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, required input, and scope. It could mention response behavior (e.g., success/failure), but the absence is acceptable for a minimal 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to add meaning. The description merely restates that transaction_token is required, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 metadata on an existing transaction, specifying the resource (transaction) and the action (updates metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spreedly_transaction_list and spreedly_transaction_show by limiting scope to metadata only.

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 mentions a requirement (transaction_token) and emphasizes that it ONLY modifies transaction metadata, implying it should not be used for other updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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