delete_transaction_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'delete' signals a destructive action, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permanence, side effects, or error handling. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth that would help an agent understand consequences.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately states the purpose. It does not need to explain return values because there is no output schema. It could mention permanence, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for a basic delete operation.

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 fully documents the only parameter (rule_id) with its description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that deletion is by ID, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('transaction rule'), and a method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_transaction_rule, update_transaction_rule, and get_transaction_rules.

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 usage: call this tool when you have a rule_id and want to remove that rule. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives, but for a delete operation, alternatives are not necessary. There is no misleading guidance, and the context is clear.

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