delete_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'permanently delete,' which implies irreversibility but offers no details about side effects, such as cascading deletion of related data (e.g., splits, attachments), permission requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key action, but it is too sparse. A single sentence with no structure or additional context leaves out essential details. While it earns credit for brevity, the lack of any structured guidance reduces its utility.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) some might argue a short description is enough, but this is a destructive action in a financial context. The description fails to mention consequences, such as whether the deletion is permanent and irreversible (though hinted) or what happens to associated records. Without annotations, this is incomplete.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'id' parameter. While it is reasonably inferable that 'id' refers to the transaction's unique identifier, the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any format or constraints. The agent must rely on assumptions, which is risky for a deletion call.

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) and the resource (transaction), with the word 'permanently' adding a nuance of irreversibility. It distinguishes from other delete tools like delete_account or delete_budget by naming the specific resource. However, it does not elaborate on scope or criteria, but for a simple single-resource delete this is sufficient.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or limitations. While there is no sibling that also deletes transactions, the description does not mention, for example, whether to avoid deleting transactions that are part of a split or linked to other records. The user is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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