mmex_scheduled_delete

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

The description merely states the action (delete) without disclosing behavioral traits beyond that. It does not mention side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), permission requirements, whether the deletion is reversible, or error handling (e.g., behavior if the ID does not exist). With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by parameter details. It is appropriately sized and contains no superfluous information, though the docstring format is slightly verbose for a tool description.

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?

Given the tool is a simple delete with required id and optional authentication parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context about what happens on success vs failure, whether the output schema provides status, and if there are any constraints (e.g., cannot delete if linked to other records). An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

The parameter descriptions add meaning beyond schema titles: 'id' is clarified as 'the scheduled transaction ID to delete', 'db_path' as path to .mmb file (optional if env var set), and 'db_key' similarly. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and provides useful context for each 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?

The description clearly states 'Delete a scheduled transaction from the MMEX database.' This is a specific verb (delete) and resource (scheduled transaction), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling CRUD tools like create, get, list, update, and update_partial.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., verifying the transaction exists), conditions under which deletion is safe, or when to use other scheduled transaction tools instead.

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