delete_scheduled_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side-effect scoping detail (does not affect already-created transactions), which is valuable. However, it doesn't state whether the schedule deletion is reversible, what the return value is, or any other behavioral consequences beyond that single scope clarification.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical scope caveat and an Args section. It wastes no words, though the Args section slightly duplicates the schema's parameter documentation, which is a minor redundancy.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the key side-effect scope, and the parameter format. The scope caveat is the most important contextual detail and is well covered. No major gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with the guid parameter described in the input schema ('Scheduled transaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)'). The description repeats this same information in the Args section. The description adds some value by restating it in context, but does not go beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('scheduled transaction'), and immediately adds scope: 'Does not affect transactions already created from this schedule.' It is specific and distinct from siblings like update_scheduled_transaction, create_transaction_from_scheduled, and delete_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like void_transaction or delete_transaction. However, the scope clarification ('does not affect transactions already created') implicitly distinguishes it from deletion of actual transactions. There's no exclusion guidance for when not to use this tool.

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