delete_transaction

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate that. The description adds value by noting the authentication requirement (API key), which is not present in annotations. No contradiction found.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. Every part serves a purpose: stating the action and noting a requirement.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and a key prerequisite. It does not detail side effects or response, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. However, it adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema (type integer, minimum 1) already provides. For a simple parameter, some additional context could be expected but is missing.

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 'Delete a transaction by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It includes the requirement 'Requires IWMM_API_KEY' which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_transactions or record_transaction.

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 implies use when you need to delete a transaction and provides a prerequisite (API key). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the self-explanatory name provide adequate guidance.

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