Delete Transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanently delete' which conveys destructiveness, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: what happens to related data, whether deletion can be undone, permission requirements, error conditions, or what the response looks like (confirmation vs. void).

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'permanently' entails in practice, what confirmation or response to expect, error scenarios, or system implications. The combination of destructive nature and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by its identifier' which echoes the schema's 'Transaction identifier to delete'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('permanently delete') and target resource ('a transaction by its identifier'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_category or delete_wallet, which follow similar patterns.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., transaction must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with similar tools like edit_transaction for modifying instead of deleting.

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