delete_transaction Delete a transaction and reverse its balance effect on the account.
Args:
transaction_id: The ID of the transaction to delete
Returns:
Confirmation with updated account balance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by specifying that the transaction's balance effect is reversed and that the return value is a confirmation with the updated account balance. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's side effects.
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 well-structured: the action is stated first, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes necessary information without repeating the title or restating the schema.
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 destructive operation, the description covers the action, the balance effect, and the return format. Annotations already convey destructiveness, so no further behavioral disclosure is required. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit Returns statement.
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 0%, but the description includes an Args section defining transaction_id as 'The ID of the transaction to delete'. This provides the meaning the schema lacks, turning a bare integer into an actionable identifier. It is concise but sufficiently specific.
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: delete a transaction. The additional clause 'reverse its balance effect on the account' clarifies the scope and consequence of deletion. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_delete_transactions or undo_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_delete_transactions or undo_transaction. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.