delete_transaction

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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks this as destructive; the description adds concrete behavioral context beyond it: failure on split/group transactions and their parents, the requirement to unsplit/ungroup first, and irreversibility. This is valuable, though it stops short of describing failure semantics (e.g., error type) or side effects.

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 sentences carry the full behavioral contract: the action, the key failure condition, the prerequisite action, and irreversibility. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important fact (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter delete tool with a destructiveHint annotation and one complete schema description, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: scope, preconditions, and irreversibility. It omits return/error behavior, but that is minor for such a simple operation and no output schema exists.

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 covers 100% of the parameter documentation (transaction_id with a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the complete schema.

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 and resource: 'Delete a single transaction.' It distinguishes from siblings like delete_transactions_bulk and delete_transaction_group by emphasizing 'single' and by noting the split/group constraint. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: this tool deletes exactly one transaction, and it explicitly warns that split/group transactions and their parents must be unsplit/ungrouped first. It does not name alternatives like delete_transactions_bulk or delete_transaction_group, but the 'single' qualifier and the precondition effectively route the agent away from incorrect use.

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