Delete a budget
books_delete_budgetDelete a budget. The books don't change. Free.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The budget's name, e.g. "2026". |
books_delete_budgetDelete a budget. The books don't change. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The budget's name, e.g. "2026". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying that the underlying books are unaffected and that the operation is free, which matters for an agent assessing side effects.
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 very short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two most relevant side-effect facts. Nothing is wasted for such a simple tool.
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 simple one-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential action plus two useful behavioral facts. It does not explain missing-budget behavior, though idempotentHint already addresses that.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example. The description does not add any parameter-level detail, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a budget.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like books_save_budget and books_list_budgets without needing the schema.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. The name and title imply a delete action, but the description itself does not route the agent beyond the obvious verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.