Batch Delete Transactions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing IRREVERSIBILITY and, crucially, partial-batch semantics: CONFIRMED rows are skipped and lookup/indeterminate outcomes are reported per ID. This per-ID failure behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for a batch mutation. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the required audit reason's behavioral role.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and the IRREVERSIBLE warning, then the skip and reporting semantics. No filler; every clause 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 two-parameter destructive batch tool with no output schema, the definition covers action, reversibility, skip logic, and failure reporting — a solid picture. Auth/permission prerequisites and the practical need for the audit reason are the only notable omissions.

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 ids and reason are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a marginal hint ('per ID' reporting) and does not explain the semantics of the required audit reason or the 500-item cap. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ... transactions') and adds the batch scope ('multiple'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_transaction. The odd all-caps 'PROJECT' qualifier is unexplained and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 batch scope and the note that CONFIRMED rows are skipped imply usage, and the contrast with single delete_transaction is inferable from the name. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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