Delete Transaction Rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing a real side-effect limit (already-applied changes to transactions persist) and a verification step (re-read the rule list), which is genuine added value.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action and identifier, followed by two distinct consequence notes. No filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the mutation's semantics and verification. Slightly incomplete because it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., non-existent ID) or permission requirements.

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 rule_id parameter, so the description must compensate; it does so only partially by pointing to get_transaction_rules as the ID source but never states ID format or validity expectations. Marginal value over the bare schema.

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 (Delete) plus resource (automation rule) and the lookup key (by ID from get_transaction_rules), clearly separating it from the create_/update_ siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 supplies the context an agent needs to invoke it – the rule_id is sourced from get_transaction_rules – but offers no explicit exclusions such as 'use update_transaction_rule to disable instead of deleting'. Clear context without alternatives.

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