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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining immediate irreversibility, the absence of a linked-record check, the ledger recomputation, and the restoration of a linked invoice's outstanding amount. Also instructs user confirmation.

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?

Two dense but readable sentences cover the action, consequences, and required user confirmation without unnecessary detail.

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?

Covers the essential side effects and confirmation requirement. No output schema exists, so the lack of return-value detail is acceptable; error cases are not mentioned but are not critical for this tool.

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 only parameter, id, is referenced as the income record id. Though the schema provides no field description, the tool description makes the parameter's purpose clear enough for a simple identifier.

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?

Clearly states the action: permanently delete an income record by id. Distinguished from related tools like delete_expense and save_income.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: irreversible, no linked-record check, ledger recomputes, and confirm with the user. Does not name alternative tools like restore_deleted or unlink_income_transaction, but the usage context is still clear.

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