unsplit_transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, and the description adds meaningful detail: it discloses that children are deleted and the parent is restored. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining exactly what destructive effect occurs, without contradicting the annotation.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second delivers the essential usage hint. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

With only one parameter, a clear operation description, and destructiveHint annotation, the definition covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. There is no output schema, but none is needed for an action that returns a simple result. Error cases are not mentioned, but that is not expected for such a targeted operation.

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 describes transaction_id with guidance to use split_parent_id, and the description reinforces the critical caveat to pass the parent, not a child. Together they fully clarify the parameter's semantics, eliminating ambiguity about which ID to use.

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 ('Unsplit') and resource ('transaction'), and explains the action precisely: 'deleting its children and restoring the parent.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'split_transaction' and from generic delete tools like 'delete_transaction' by clarifying the operation is a reversal of a split, not a full deletion.

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 context for when to use it ('previously split transaction') and a critical usage instruction: 'Pass the parent (split_parent_id) — not a child — as the path id.' This guides correct invocation, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like delete_transaction. The condition is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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