set_transaction_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only signals that this is a mutation; it does not say what permissions are needed, whether the write is idempotent, whether it overwrites an existing note beyond the schema's 'empty clears it', or what confirmation is returned. 'Changes the user's RiseUp account' is too vague to be useful behavioral context.

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 short sentences, appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence ('Changes the user's RiseUp account') restates the setting of a note on RiseUp rather than earning its place with new 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no error/permission context, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent what a successful call yields or what happens when transactionId is invalid, leaving gaps that structured fields cannot fill.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'comment' empty clears the note and where transactionId comes from. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set the note on a transaction'), which is distinguishable from siblings like list_transactions and get_budget. The trailing sentence 'Changes the user's RiseUp account' is vague and over-broad but does not obscure the core action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus move_transaction or the read tools, and no mention of prerequisites or context. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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