Remove a transaction's receipt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description usefully adds that the transaction itself is unchanged, but does not mention permissions, the confirm-flag workflow, or what happens if no receipt exists. It does not contradict 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope-clarifying second sentence. No filler.

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 mutation tool it covers the core action and scope, but omits the confirm-approval semantics that are essential to correct invocation, plus failure behavior. Ancillary detail is minor since there is no output schema and few params.

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 50%: transactionId has no description and confirm does ('Set true once the user has approved writes for this session'). The description adds no parameter detail, so it neither helps nor compensates – baseline 3 for moderate coverage.

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 (Remove) and resource (the file/receipt attached to a transaction), and the second sentence clarifies scope: only the file is removed, not the transaction. This clearly distinguishes it from delete_document, attach_transaction_receipt, and update_transaction.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling attach_transaction_receipt. The confirm parameter hints at a write-approval workflow, but the description never explains it.

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