Batch Delete Transactions

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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations: the irreversible nature, that confirmed rows are skipped, and that lookup failures are reported per ID. This adds valuable context on top of the destructiveHint annotation without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with three clauses, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no filler words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers core behavior (irreversible, skip confirmed, report failures). However, it does not describe the success response format (e.g., summary of deletions), which an agent might need to determine next steps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context for the 'ids' parameter (e.g., lookup failures reported per ID) and implies the reason is for audit notes, though the schema already describes both parameters concisely.

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 clearly states the tool deletes multiple PROJECT transactions, using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('PROJECT transactions'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_transaction (single) and batch_confirm_journals (different action) by specifying 'multiple' and the context of project transactions.

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 clear behavioral context (IRREVERSIBLE) and handling of confirmed rows and lookup failures, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_transaction for single deletes). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but explicit when-not guidance is missing.

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