Delete scheduled transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds genuinely new context: deletion is non-cascading ("Transactions it already entered stay") and requires user confirmation, which no structured field conveys. It stops short of saying the schedule deletion itself is irreversible or what happens to a bad ID.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the scope caveat, then the confirmation requirement. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the core operation.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema description coverage, the description only needs to cover behavior, which it largely does: effect, non-cascading scope, and confirmation. The missing piece is whether the schedule deletion can be undone, a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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% on a single required parameter, so the schema already explains scheduled_transaction_id as the UUID of the schedule to delete. The description adds no format, lookup, or validation guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a scheduled transaction") plus the practical effect ("so it stops happening"), which separates it from delete_transaction and update_scheduled_transaction by resource name. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use instead when the intent is to skip only one occurrence.

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?

It gives one concrete operational guideline — "Confirm with the user before deleting" — which is real usage guidance. However, it never addresses the main ambiguity for an agent: when to delete the schedule versus using update_scheduled_transaction to change it or enter_scheduled_transaction to record an occurrence.

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