ynab_delete_scheduled_transaction

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the crucial two-phase commit pattern (preview then execute) with 'Write safety' and explains the short-lived token, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the essential two-step process. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive, idempotent nature and the preview safety mechanism, the description covers all necessary context. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 low (25%), but the description compensates by explaining the roles of dry_run and confirmation_token through the preview/execute flow. It does not describe budget_id or scheduled_transaction_id, but those are typical for a delete operation.

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 a scheduled transaction') and the resource, directly matching the tool name. The two-step preview/execute pattern distinguishes it from sibling tools like update or create.

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 explicitly guides the user to call without confirmation_token to preview first, then execute with the returned token. This provides a clear workflow but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives, though the purpose is distinct.

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