delete_rule

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint=true' already indicates the tool is destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to related transactions, or if confirmation is required. It does not contradict the annotation, but does not enrich it.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple parameter set (only one required, with full schema coverage) and the presence of a destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits any mention of return values (e.g., success message or error behavior), which could be helpful for an agent to handle the response correctly.

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 a description for 'rule_id' ('Rule ID to delete'), which fully explains the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is baseline.

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 explicitly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a transaction rule'), and the identifier method ('by its ID'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_rules' (retrieval) and 'create_rule' (creation).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deactivating a rule instead of deleting it). It does not mention prerequisites, such as fetching valid rule IDs first, or any warnings about irreversible deletion. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and siblings.

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