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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: that removing a split leaves the transaction intact, and that deleting a settlement also removes its associated bank row if one exists. These specifics are not captured in annotations and materially affect agent decisions.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses a semicolon to separate the two modes. No wasted words, and the key behavioral caveat ('the transaction stays') is included without clutter.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already specified. The description covers the two operational modes and their side effects, but doesn't clarify whether both parameters can be provided simultaneously (though the 'or' implies mutual exclusivity). This is a minor gap given the overall clarity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must convey parameter meaning. It does so by associating split_id with the split-removal action and settlement_id with the settlement-deletion action, though it doesn't explicitly name the parameters. This is sufficient for an agent to infer which parameter to use for each mode.

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 clearly states two distinct actions: removing a split from a transaction (explicitly noting the transaction remains) and deleting a settlement by id. It uses specific verbs ('remove' and 'delete') tied to specific resources, and it differentiates from siblings like delete_transaction and delete_transfer by scoping to splits and settlements.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need to remove a split without affecting the transaction, or when you need to delete a settlement. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'or' structure and clear resource distinction provide sufficient guidance for an agent to decide.

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