mf_expense_delete_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers a critical behavioral warning: the operation is irreversible with no undo in the connector (元に戻せません). This is exactly the kind of information an agent needs before a destructive call. It does not, however, mention authorization requirements or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first states the action, the second leads with the irreversibility warning in bold and follows with the confirmation workflow. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral risk (irreversibility) and the required confirmation workflow. It could be strengthened with permission requirements or expected failure modes, but it is largely complete for a two-parameter delete.

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 both office_id and transaction_id are already documented in the schema (事業者ID, 経費明細ID). The description adds no param-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Stated with a specific verb and resource (経費明細を削除します), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mf_expense_update_transaction and mf_expense_create_transaction. An agent can immediately identify this as the delete operation for expense transactions.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to present the target's ID, date, amount, and summary to the user for confirmation before executing, which is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., use update instead for modifications).

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