delete_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that transactions can be reassigned via reassign_to_category_id, which hints at a destructive-with-mitigation behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state deletion is irreversible, what occurs if reassignment is omitted when transactions exist, or whether deletion cascades. Adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose, then bullet points add parameter detail. Formatting is clean and scannable. Minor redundancy exists (both single and batch params explained), but overall it's efficient.

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 zero annotations and 3 undocumented params, the description covers the essential mechanics. An output schema exists, so return-format explanation isn't needed. However, critical behavioral gaps remain: what happens if no reassignment is specified for categories with linked transactions, error handling for nonexistent categories, and precedence between the two deletion parameters.

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 compensate. It does explain the purpose of each of the 3 parameters (category_ids_or_names, category_id_or_name alias, reassign_to_category_id). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't clarify precedence if both category_id_or_name and category_ids_or_names are provided, or the exact accepted types/format rules for IDs vs names.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource combo ('Delete one or more categories') and explicitly states the scope (from the library). It distinguishes from siblings like add_category/update_category/list_categories by focusing on deletion. The single/batch distinction is also made clear.

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 explains the mechanism for deletion (single vs list, reassignment target). However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, no mention of what happens if a category has linked transactions without reassignment, and no note on irreversible destructive effects. It's implied usage but not clearly scoped.

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