delete_transactionsRemove one or more transactions by ID with soft deletion, optionally previewing via dry_run; restore_transactions can recover them.
Delete transactions by id (soft delete; restore_transactions brings them back).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | Preview the outcome without saving anything |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the genuinely useful nuance that this is a soft delete reversible via restore_transactions, which prevents an agent from treating destruction as permanent. It does not mention the 100-id batch ceiling, partial-failure behavior, or that dry_run is available.
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?
A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed immediately by the reversibility caveat and its sibling pointer. No filler, nothing buried.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what it does, that it is destructive, idempotent, and reversible. The main gap is the batch limit and preview option, which the agent can still discover from the schema.
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 50%: dry_run is documented in the schema, but ids is not. The description only confirms deletion is keyed by id, adding no detail on the array form or the 100-item limit, and says nothing about dry_run. It partially compensates but leaves the undocumented parameter unexplained.
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 and resource ('Delete transactions') plus the keying mechanism ('by id'). The parenthetical distinguishes the operation from its sibling restore_transactions, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?
The description names restore_transactions as the undo path, giving clear context for the reversibility of this action. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool (e.g. use update_transactions to modify instead) or any preconditions, so it is clear but not fully exclusive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.