DeleteScheduledTransaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds value beyond them: 'Permanently delete' confirms irreversibility in user-facing terms, and the confirmation guardrail tells the agent it must have explicit user intent. It does not describe behavior when the ID does not exist, which is the main remaining gap.

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, zero waste, with the destructive nature and the invocation precondition front-loaded. Nothing needs to be read twice or skimmed past.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotency profile. For a single-resource destructive delete the description is nearly complete; it only omits what happens on an invalid or already-deleted ID.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (plan_id defaulting to 'last-used', scheduled_transaction_id as the exact ID). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (scheduled transaction), and the 'scheduled' qualifier is exactly what separates it from the sibling Ynab_DeleteTransaction and Ynab_UpdateScheduledTransaction. An agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only call this when the user has clearly asked to delete this specific scheduled transaction.' This is a clear when-to-use rule and a guard against speculative deletion, though it names no alternative (e.g. Ynab_UpdateScheduledTransaction) for the case where the user wants to change rather than remove it.

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