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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so "for good" adds little; the real value is the disclosed permission model and the dry-run preview behavior when confirm is absent. It doesn't cover error cases (e.g., missing receipt, insufficient rights), keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and permanence, then authorization, then the confirm mechanic. No filler.

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 destructive 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers permanence, authorization, and the preview safety valve — the key facts an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (receiptId, confirm) are already documented in detail. The description's remark about confirm:true largely restates the schema's own explanation, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a receipt of an expense") and adds permanence ("for good"). This cleanly isolates it from the sibling delete_expense (deletes the expense) and add_expense_receipt without needing to name them.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance — who is authorized (the logger and the project owner) and the confirm:true requirement with preview fallback. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools or say when deleting a receipt is preferable to updating/removing the expense, so it stops short of a 5.

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