Update Transaction

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. Still, it adds no behavioral context beyond the parenthetical list of updatable fields, and it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, or output behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it efficient. However, the parenthetical list is incomplete relative to the schema, which slightly reduces its precision.

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 100% schema coverage and annotations present, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any guidance on choosing this tool over the closely related categorize_transaction sibling, and it does not clarify the full scope of updatable fields, so it is not fully complete for an agent operating in this sibling-rich context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions only category, notes, and reconciliation status, and adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already documents for direction or trading_entity_id.

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 transaction') and lists several mutable fields, so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like categorize_transaction, which likely handles category-only updates, and it omits the direction and trading_entity_id fields from the parenthetical scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus categorize_transaction, create_transaction, or other update tools. An agent cannot tell whether a category-only change should go here or to categorize_transaction, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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