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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'DANGER' warning aligns with and reinforces them. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies exactly what gets destroyed (transaction, journal, and cost-basis history) and that the operation rebuilds from source data. It doesn't detail side effects like irreversible loss or rate limits, but the explicit warning and scope of destruction are strong. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the danger warning, and packs the essential scope, condition, and alternative into minimal words. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the critical context: what is destroyed, when to use it, and the alternative. It could mention that the operation is irreversible or that it affects all wallets when omitted, but the schema already notes the optional wallets behavior and the description's warning is strong. Minor gap: no explicit statement about irreversibility beyond 'DANGER' and 'destructive reset'.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the important semantic that omitting 'wallets' wipes and rebuilds every wallet in the portfolio, which is a critical behavioral nuance not fully captured in the schema's 'Optional' wording. However, it doesn't add detail on workspaceRef/portfolioRef beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb ('delete and rebuild'), a clear resource ('selected wallet transaction, journal, and cost-basis history'), and the source of data ('from source data'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from incremental_sync, making it easy for an agent to select this tool for destructive resets versus routine syncs.

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 explicitly says 'Use only after the user explicitly requests this destructive reset and accepts the consequences' and names the alternative 'incremental_sync' for routine new activity. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus a direct alternative.

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