mmex_transactions_delete_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the delete action without disclosing behavioral traits like irreversibility, cascading effects on transaction totals, required permissions, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence is meaningful, with no filler. The main action is front-loaded.

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 description covers the core operation and parameters, but given the presence of an output schema (which could explain the return value), it lacks context on how deletion affects the parent transaction or what the response contains. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more thorough.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: split_id is 'Split ID to delete', db_path and db_key include environment variable fallback info. This adds value beyond the schema types.

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 the action: 'Delete a split from a transaction.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like mmex_transactions_delete (whole transaction) and mmex_transactions_update_split (modify split), though it could explicitly mention it does not affect the transaction itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mmex_transactions_update_split or mmex_transactions_delete). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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