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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and the non-obvious cascade that both legs of a transfer are removed. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens to linked items like splits, tags, or refund links.

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, zero filler, with the destructive warning front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Every clause 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the key risks (permanence, transfer cascade) are covered. Remaining gaps are secondary details like auth needs and treatment of linked records.

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 single 'id' param is fully documented as a UUID with a pattern, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only 'by ID', which is baseline-level reinforcement.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a transaction') and the identifier used to target it. It is distinguishable from the many other delete_* siblings by naming the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with delete_investment_transaction or the archive_* tools.

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 alternatives such as archive_account, delete_transaction_group, or delete_split, nor any prerequisites or preconditions. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for removing a single transaction.

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