move_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does considerable work: it names the mutation ('Changes the user's RiseUp account'), discloses the non-obvious merchant-wide side effect of applyTo=merchant, and states the return value. It still omits reversibility and whether authentication/permissions are required, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences that front-load the action and its destinations, with no filler. The semicolon-joined clauses pack a lot in, which is efficient if slightly heavy for quick scanning.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, and result state. The presence of riseup_login/riseup_session_status siblings implies auth handling, so the main remaining gap is reversibility of the change.

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 four parameters are already documented in the input schema; the description largely restates the `to` and `applyTo` semantics. It adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb ('Move a transaction') and enumerates the exact destination states: variable expenses, excluded from cashflow, or a tracking category. None of the sibling tools (list_transactions, list_categories, set_transaction_comment) performs this action, so the agent can identify it immediately.

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 explains the semantics of the `to` and `applyTo` values, which implies when each option applies, but never states when to prefer this tool or when not to use it. There is no explicit routing against alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid session first).

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