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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is present. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by emphasizing permanence and requiring explicit user confirmation before invocation. It does not discuss invalid/nonexistent IDs, but that is a minor gap given the simple operation and annotations.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The destructive permanence is front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement follows immediately as the key operational caveat.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential agent concerns: what is deleted, that it is permanent, and that explicit confirmation is required. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only repeats that deletion is by id, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured field.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('delete an expense') and clarifies the deletion is by id. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling deletions like delete_journey or delete_stay by resource, and from update_expense by operation.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: call only after the user has explicitly confirmed the deletion. It does not name alternatives such as update_expense, but the destructive nature makes the usage condition clear and the correct sibling selection obvious.

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