Remove a transaction by its ID. First call previews the deletion; pass confirm: true to permanently delete it.
Delete a transaction by its ID. Destructive and irreversible: the first call only previews what would be lost, and deleting requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to delete. Without it, the tool only previews. | |
| transaction_id | Yes | Transaction 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial 'irreversible' qualifier and explains the preview/confirm mechanism. This goes beyond the annotations and tells the agent exactly what to expect behaviorally, including the safety rail of previewing before actual deletion.
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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical behavioral warning. 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?
For a destructive tool with a two-step confirm flow, the description fully equips the agent: it knows what it does, the irreversibility, and the exact call sequence. No output schema exists, but that's not a gap here. The description is complete for safe and 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the schema already documents confirm as 'Must be true to delete. Without it, the tool only previews.' The description simply restates that behavior without adding new parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Delete a transaction by its ID' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_transaction and update_transaction. The ID parameter is named, and the destructive nature is immediately apparent.
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 explicitly describes the two-step usage pattern: a first call previews the loss, and a subsequent call with confirm:true executes the delete. This gives clear context for how to invoke the tool safely, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the guidance is strong and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.