Delete transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds 'permanently', which usefully conveys irreversibility. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits potential side effects or details about what happens to associated recurring data.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter deletion tool.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the conflicting parameter schema and the presence of multiple sibling delete/mark/skip tools leave an agent without enough information to reliably select and invoke this tool. It should clarify that it deletes a regular transaction, not a recurring one, and that the ID is the transaction ID.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the lone parameter description says 'ID of the recurring transaction to mark as done, skip or delete', which appears copy-pasted from another tool and conflicts with the tool's purpose. The tool description adds no clarification, so an agent could be misled about what ID to provide.

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 a verb and resource ('Delete transaction permanently') and is not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish between normal transactions and recurring transactions, which is relevant given the sibling deleteRecurringTransaction tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deleteRecurringTransaction, markRecurringTransactionDone, or skipRecurringTransaction. The word 'permanently' hints at irreversibility but provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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