Invalidate Transaction

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

Description explains that the tool converts a confirmed transaction to unconfirmed status, which aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds context beyond annotations by clarifying what 'invalidate' means operationally.

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?

A single, clear sentence that explains the action and result without unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 simple mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and purpose. It could mention that it is the inverse of confirm_transaction, but is otherwise complete.

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%, and the parameter 'id' is adequately described in the schema as 'Object ID'. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter.

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 verb 'Invalidate' and resource 'transaction', and explains the result: 'Returns it to unconfirmed status for editing or deletion.' This distinguishes it from siblings like confirm_transaction (confirms) and delete_transaction (deletes).

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 use when you want to edit or delete a confirmed transaction but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to siblings like confirm_transaction or delete_transaction.

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