delete_trade

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that confirmation is obtained before execution and that the operation is irreversible. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and provides additional behavioral context.

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 with only two sentences, no unnecessary words, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose (definition and behavioral note).

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what parameter is needed, where to get it, and important behavioral notes (confirmation, irreversibility).

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 parameter 'id' is clearly described with its source (get_trade_journal), adding meaning beyond the schema which only specifies it's required and of type number. This helps the agent correctly obtain the ID.

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 (delete an existing trade record) and specifies the identifier (transaction id). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_trade and update_trade.

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 indicates that user confirmation is required and the operation is irreversible, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like update_trade.

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