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

While annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds key behavioral detail: deleting a transaction cascades to its splits, and transfer legs are explicitly excluded and require deleting the transfer instead. This tells the agent exactly what gets destroyed, going beyond the annotation flags.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important caveats about splits and transfer legs follow immediately. Every word 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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential action, the cascade behavior, and the transfer exception. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from calling the tool correctly.

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%, and the description never mentions the `id` parameter explicitly or explains how to obtain it. The phrase 'a transaction' implies the id identifies a transaction, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation on the parameter.

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', and immediately clarifies scope by noting that any split on it is also deleted. It also distinguishes itself from transfer-related tools by saying transfer legs should be handled differently. This gives an agent a precise mental model of what the tool does.

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?

Provides a clear when-not-to-use instruction: for transfer legs, delete the transfer instead. It also implies that this tool is for deleting whole transactions (including splits), contrasting with split-level tools. The alternative behavior is explicit enough for an agent to route correctly.

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