Remove a transaction rule permanently. Preview first with rule ID, then confirm deletion with confirm:true to finalize.
Delete a transaction rule by its ID. Destructive and irreversible: the first call only previews the rule, and deleting requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to delete. Without it, the tool only previews. | |
| rule_id | Yes | Rule ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.3Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Must be true to delete. Without it, the tool only previews.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds the critical nuance that the first call only previews and actual deletion requires confirm: true, plus it explicitly labels the operation irreversible. This provides rich behavioral context that the annotations alone do not convey.
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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second delivers the critical destructive caveat and confirmation requirement. Zero filler and perfectly 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?
The description covers the essential behavior (purpose, destructiveness, two-step confirm) and is sufficiently complete for a simple two-parameter tool without an output schema. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but those are not essential for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's meaning by explaining the preview/confirm flow, but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('transaction rule') with its identifier, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_account or delete_category by targeting rules specifically.
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 implies usage for deleting transaction rules, and since there is no update_rule sibling, it is the only deletion tool for rules. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.