delete_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that deletion supports single or multiple IDs, but doesn't reveal what happens on deletion (irreversibility, associated records affected, return shape) or whether this is destructive (which deletion inherently implies). For a mutation tool, the description should explicitly warn about irreversibility.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bulleted parameter clarification. It's efficient with no wasted words. Could arguably be more structured but is appropriately concise.

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 a mutation behavior with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema. While it has an output schema, the description doesn't state what the deletion returns (e.g., count deleted, success confirmation). For a delete operation with ambiguous dual-parameter design, the description is adequate but lacks detail on result/return behavior and edge cases like nonexistent IDs.

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. The description clarifies that transaction_ids accepts either an integer or a list, and that transaction_id is an alias for single-ID deletion. This adds meaningful semantics beyond what the schema's anyOf structure conveys, particularly the alias relationship between the two parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Delete one or more transactions by ID.' The purpose is specific and the distinction between transaction_ids (list or single) and transaction_id (alias for single) is clarified. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from delete_category sibling, but the resource is clearly transactions.

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 two parameter forms and highlights transaction_id as an alias, giving some usage guidance. However, it doesn't state when one param should be preferred over the other, nor does it disambiguate from sibling delete_category when deleting transactions vs categories. The ambiguity between transaction_id and transaction_ids as alternatives is noted but not resolved with clear guidance.

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