Delete transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the candidate's destructive and unsafe writing nature is well-established. The description itself adds no further behavioral context—it doesn't mention irreversibility, cascading effects on splits, or error conditions—but it doesn't contradict the annotations either (delete aligns with destructive=true).

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It conveys the verb, resource, and required input in the smallest useful amount of text, appropriately sized for a one-parameter destructive operation.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param) and the strong annotations (destructive, non-readonly, idempotent) plus an output schema, the description is adequate for a basic call. The main missing context is peripheral, like whether specifying transactions auto-deletes their splits or any side effects on linked categories; these are not critical for a single-id delete but would be nice.

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% (transaction_id is fully described as 'Monarch transaction ID'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the obvious 'by ID' mapping; it does not clarify format, provenance of the ID, or validation rules, but the rich schema 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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a concrete resource ('transaction'), and the mechanism ('by ID'), which clearly separates it from get_transaction, update_transaction, and create_transaction among the siblings. It also avoids tautology since 'by ID' adds meaningful scope beyond the tool name and title.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like update_transaction or delete_transaction_category. No context about typical workflows, prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid transaction ID first), or consequences is given, so an agent has nothing to ground the selection decision on.

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