qb_delete_transaction

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the destructive nature (deletion), the requirement for an accurate snapshot for undo capability, and the consequence of missing snapshot (cannot be undone). This adequately informs the agent of key behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the critical snapshot requirement, but lacks information on return values (no output schema) and error conditions. Given the tool has four parameters and one nested object, more detail on expected outcomes would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for 'before_snapshot' by specifying required fields (account, payee, etc.) and its purpose. However, 'txn_id', 'txn_type', and 'expected_company_file' receive no additional meaning beyond schema titles.

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 ('Deletes a transaction') and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qb_add_transaction and qb_modify_transaction_line by focusing on deletion.

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 explicitly instructs to query the transaction first to obtain the before_snapshot, and warns about the irreversibility without an accurate snapshot. It provides clear context for use, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool.

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