Delete up to 500 transactions at once by providing their IDs. Unsplit or ungroup any split/group transactions first, as this irreversible action fails otherwise.
Bulk-delete transactions by ID (1-500). Fails if any ID is a split or group parent, or part of a split/group; unsplit or ungroup those first. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of transaction IDs to delete (1-500). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation is reinforced and expanded with valuable behavior: the operation fails on split/group-related IDs and is irreversible. This goes well beyond the annotation by telling the agent about failure conditions and the need to pre-process 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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The core action, constraints, count limit, prerequisite, and irreversibility are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the operation, constraints, prerequisite, and irreversibility. It does not describe the success/error response format, but there is no output schema and the behavior is otherwise sufficiently explained.
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 already fully describes the single parameter (array of transaction IDs, 1-500). The description adds context about split/group behavior but does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Bulk-delete transactions by ID'. It also adds a clear scope boundary (1-500 IDs), which distinguishes it from the singular delete_transaction sibling without needing to open schemas.
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 clearly conveys this is the bulk deletion path and provides an explicit precondition: IDs that are split/group parents or members must be unsplit/ungrouped first. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'bulk' framing and 1-500 limit make the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.