Batch Delete Transactions

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating 'IRREVERSIBLE', explaining that confirmed rows are skipped, and detailing how failures are reported per ID. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model of what happens during execution.

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 crisp sentences. The first delivers the core action and scope; the second adds essential behavioral warnings. No filler, and critical constraints (irreversibility) are 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?

Covers the essential operational details: irreversibility, skip behavior, and per-ID error reporting. Since there is no output schema, it would be stronger if it briefly described the success response format, but the given information is sufficient for a destructive batch 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'ids' and 'reason' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate – the schema already carries the semantic load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete multiple PROJECT transactions.' It clearly indicates batch operation and project scope, distinguishing it from the singular delete_transaction sibling. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 batch usage via 'multiple' but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like delete_transaction or invalidate_transaction. It does not mention when not to use it or any conditions that would route the agent to a sibling tool.

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