delete_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does significantly well: it explains the all-or-nothing batch behavior, the force override for reconciled splits, the invoice-posting-record safeguard, and the response format for both single and list calls. It does not explicitly state it's destructive (though implied), but the safeguards and response shape give substantial behavioral context.

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 tightly packed with substantive content — purpose, safeguards, batch semantics, response shape, and args. Every sentence earns its place. The args section cleanly mirrors the schema. No filler or 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still describes the response shape precisely for both single and list invocations, which is valuable since the shapes differ between modes. It addresses the complexity of batch all-or-nothing behavior, safeguards, and the force flag, covering the important edge cases. The description is essentially complete for this tool's 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'guid' is explained as a Transaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix) or a list; 'force' is explained as allowing deletion with reconciled splits. It also adds return-shape semantics. It doesn't go beyond the schema in terms of edge-case validation details, but the coverage it provides is solid given zero schema descriptions.

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 one transaction by GUID — or several in one call' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools like void_transaction (which voids rather than deletes), delete_account, and delete_invoice by making the target scope precise. The description explicitly notes it deletes transactions, which differentiates it from the many other delete_* sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance including safeguards: it explains that deletion is prevented for transactions with reconciled splits (with force=true override) and that invoice posting records require unpost_invoice first. It also explains the batch behavior (list of GUIDs, all-or-nothing semantics). This is strong usage guidance, including exclusions and prerequisites.

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