delete_scheduled_transaction

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that previously created transactions from the schedule are unaffected. This clarifies the exact scope of destruction beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the key effect stated immediately after the main action. The Args section is somewhat redundant given the schema already describes guid, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

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 delete tool, the description covers the essential behavior, the boundary of its effect, and the parameter meaning via schema. The output schema exists and annotations cover safety traits, so no critical operational context is missing.

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 already documents guid with 100% coverage, including the 32-char hex or 8+ char prefix. The description's Args line essentially restates the schema without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: "Delete a scheduled transaction." It further distinguishes the tool's scope by stating it does not affect transactions already created from the schedule, which is relevant given the sibling delete_transaction tool exists. No ambiguity about what this tool acts on.

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 intended use is implied by the name and opening sentence, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like update_scheduled_transaction or delete_transaction. The note about not affecting existing transactions is useful context but does not provide explicit when/when-not routing guidance.

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