borderou_transaction_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat the safety profile. It adds useful link/unlink semantics, but does not disclose prerequisites, side effects beyond matching, or what happens to prior links.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the reconciliation purpose. There is no wasted text, and the description is appropriately sized.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. It could go further in distinguishing this update path from save/rematch siblings, but the essential behavior and inputs are available.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the invoice/proforma linking purpose but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a borderou transaction match', and clarifies the action as linking or unlinking to an invoice or proforma invoice. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as borderou_transactions_save or borderou_transactions_rematch.

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 reconciliation context implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like borderou_transactions_rematch or borderou_transaction_available_invoices. The operation is described, but selection criteria are left to inference.

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