Delete Recurring Transaction

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety signal is largely structured. The description adds the irreversibility qualifier 'permanently,' but it does not describe cascading effects, whether linked future transactions are affected, or what response is returned.

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 five words long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the write behavior, the description is nearly sufficient. Its only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing away from mark/skip and any description of post-delete behavior, but the low complexity makes this a minor omission.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, transactionId, so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not resolve the odd schema phrase 'mark as done, skip or delete' that appears in the transactionId field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('a recurring transaction'), and 'permanently' distinguishes it from sibling tools like markRecurringTransactionDone and skipRecurringTransaction. There is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 word 'permanently' implies this tool is for irreversible removal rather than marking or skipping a recurring transaction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when the agent should prefer mark/skip/edit tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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