delete_transaction_group

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags this as destructive, but the description adds critical nuance: it explicitly states that the original child transactions remain and revert to ungrouped normal transactions. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify the non-destructive effect on children, which is essential for an agent to avoid mistakenly thinking it deletes the entire group including children.

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 that states the action and the critical caveat about child transactions. It contains zero filler and every word adds value, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool with a single required parameter, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the exact effect on child transactions and the parameter meaning is already in the schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter transaction_id, describing it as 'ID of the transaction group (the group parent transaction) to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without extra enrichment.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'transaction group', and immediately clarifies the nuanced behavior: it ungroups rather than deletes the underlying transactions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_transaction or unsplit_transaction by specifying the exact effect on child transactions.

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 clear context that this tool is for ungrouping while preserving the child transactions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., delete_transaction for full deletion, unsplit_transaction for split transactions) or state when NOT to use this tool. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.

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