delete_transaction

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

Annotations cover key traits (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds value by specifying the scope ('from the specified budget'), which isn't in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Delete' aligns with destructiveHint=true, and no additional behavioral details like error handling or permissions are provided.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a transaction') without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, making it easy to scan and understand, with no wasted information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, but with annotations and an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks usage guidance, parameter explanations, and output details, relying on structured fields to fill gaps, resulting in a basic but incomplete overview.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying 'budget_id' and 'transaction_id' from context. It doesn't add meaning for 'dry_run' or clarify parameter formats. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description partially compensates by hinting at required IDs but falls short on full parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a transaction from the specified budget'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_transaction' or 'create_transaction', which would require mentioning it's for removal rather than modification or creation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing transaction), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying transactions), or compare to siblings like 'update_transaction' or 'clear_cache', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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