delete_transaction

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that deletion is permanent (irreversible) and that user approval is required, which are not captured in the structured fields.

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 highly concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and adding the essential safety note. Every word earns its place, with no 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 destructive tool with strong annotations, the description provides the necessary behavioral context (permanence, approval) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. No output schema is needed.

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 one parameter (transaction_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly describe the parameter, but the phrase 'one ZenMoney transaction' implies the ID mapping. This is minimal compensation; no additional format or source guidance is given.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('one ZenMoney transaction'). The word 'permanently' distinguishes it from any potential soft-delete or update tools among siblings.

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 includes an explicit precondition ('must request user approval') which gives some usage context, but it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like update_transaction_details or change_transaction_category. No exclusions or alternative pointers are provided.

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