Invalidate Transaction

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the transaction is returned to unconfirmed status and mentions traceability requirements, but does not elaborate on side effects, auth needs, or response format.

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: the first explains the action, the second adds regulatory context. No redundant or filler content. Efficient and 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?

Given the simple input (one id), no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is sufficient. It explains the effect and adds compliance context. The sibling list provides additional context.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Object ID'. The description adds no further semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 the resource 'transaction', and explains that it unconfirms a confirmed transaction, returning it to unconfirmed status for editing or deletion. This distinguishes it from related tools like confirm_transaction and delete_transaction.

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 usage for corrections requiring traceability (RPS §10) and mentions 'editing or deletion' as follow-ups. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like invalidate_journal or delete_transaction, though the context is adequate.

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