Delete Scheduled Transaction

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds minimal context with '[1 API call]' hinting at network cost, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, if it affects related data, or what happens on success/failure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence with a bracketed note) and front-loaded with the core action. Every element earns its place: the API call hint sets expectations, and the main clause states the purpose without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling, or side effects) or tie into the broader context of sibling tools. Given the complexity of financial data mutation, more completeness is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining ID format or 'last-used' implications), so it meets the baseline of 3 without providing extra 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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a scheduled transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_transaction' or 'update_scheduled_transaction', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.

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 like 'delete_transaction' or 'update_scheduled_transaction' (which might disable instead of delete). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., needing the transaction ID from 'get_scheduled_transaction') or warnings about irreversible deletion.

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