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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), the side effect on already-changed transactions ('keep their values'), the required auth scope (finance:delete), and the return shape. Nothing critical is left undisclosed for a destructive operation.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (destructive semantics, side effect, confirmation requirement, alternative, return value, scope) and front-loaded with the core action. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: irreversibility, confirmation requirement, alternative path, required scope, and the return value.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' as the UUID of the automation. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (permanently delete) and precise resource (transaction automation rule), and distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools like delete_transaction_group by naming the exact entity. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it (only on explicit user confirmation of deletion) and provides a named alternative for the adjacent case (set isEnabled to false via update_transaction_automation to stop a rule temporarily). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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