deleteScheduledTransaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool deletes a scheduled transaction, which implies mutation but provides no information about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation, though it lacks any structural elements like lists or separators. The brevity is a strength, but it could be slightly more structured to include relevant context, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 no annotations and an output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what a scheduled transaction is, any preconditions for deletion, or what happens on success or failure. Given that the tool has two required parameters and is a mutation, more context is needed for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both plan_id and scheduled_transaction_id fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema handles parameter semantics well, the description adds no extra value, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb 'deletes' and a clear resource 'scheduled transaction', making the purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling deleteTransaction, which deletes regular transactions, and from createScheduledTransaction/updateScheduledTransaction. The name and description align perfectly, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling deleteTransaction, there is potential confusion about which deletion tool to pick for different scenarios. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the resource type.

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