ynab_delete_transaction

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint), the description adds the irreversible nature, error handling, and the preview workflow. This adds value, though the idempotentHint is not explicitly addressed.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, errors, write safety). It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters, errors, and workflow. It omits details like idempotency but is sufficient for a destructive tool with preview.

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?

The description explains budget_id, transaction_id, and dry_run, but does not list confirmation_token in the Args section, even though the schema includes it. Schema coverage is low (25%), so description partially compensates.

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 tool deletes a transaction from YNAB and emphasizes irreversibility. It uses specific verb+resource, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on the two-step preview-execute workflow using confirmation_token, but does not compare to sibling tools like ynab_delete_scheduled_transaction, leaving potential ambiguity.

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