delete_transaction

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

Combined with annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds 'Irreversible' and failure conditions for split/group transactions. While not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of cascading effects on attachments), it provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 with three sentences: main action, failure case with remedy, and irreversibility. No wasted words, all essential information 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?

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, failure scenarios, and permanence. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 100% and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('ID of the transaction to delete'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states 'Delete a single transaction', specifying the action and resource. It also provides constraints about split/group transactions, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_transactions_bulk and delete_transaction_group.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool fails ('Fails for split/group transactions and their parents') and provides an alternative action ('unsplit/ungroup first'), offering clear guidance for appropriate use.

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