Delete Transaction

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the word 'Permanently', reinforcing irreversibility beyond the annotations, but says nothing about cascade effects (e.g., splits, tags) or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, permanence, resource, key parameter, and ID source. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, permanence, and ID provenance. Return values need not be explained since the output schema exists.

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 0% for the single transaction_id parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does so by specifying that the ID originates from get_transactions or find_duplicate_transactions, which tells the agent where to source and how to format a valid value.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a transaction'), names the key input (ID), and points to the sibling tools that produce valid IDs (get_transactions, find_duplicate_transactions). An agent can distinguish this from update_transaction or delete_transaction_rule without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear context for invoking the tool: the ID must come from get_transactions or find_duplicate_transactions, which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs. It stops short of stating when not to delete (e.g., prefer update_transaction for corrections), so no explicit exclusions.

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