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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important scoping: only the template stops producing future instances, and existing child transactions remain untouched. This gives the agent a precise mental model of what will and will not be destroyed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, the critical side-effect nuance follows immediately, and the parameter documentation is minimal and direct. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with a destructive annotation, a clear description of the target, and no output schema, nothing essential is missing. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and how to supply the required identifier.

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 schema provides only an integer type with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining template_id as the template Transaction.id, clarifying that it is the recurring template's identifier rather than a child transaction ID or arbitrary 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 the exact operation and resource: deleting a recurring transaction template. It further distinguishes this from deleting regular transactions by explicitly targeting the template rather than spawned children, which differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_transaction.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the goal is to stop a recurring template from producing future instances. It explicitly warns that already-spawned children are not touched, signaling that this is not the tool for removing individual child transactions, though it does not name the alternative tool.

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