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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds a critical behavioral constraint not in the schema: only entries added by this participant can be removed. It does not describe error behavior for unauthorized/failed deletes, but adds meaningful context beyond 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and supported resource types. The ownership exclusion and usage condition follow immediately, with no wasted text.

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, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers supported kinds, the participant-ownership precondition, and the trigger condition. The schema handles authentication and identifier formats, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 80%, with detailed descriptions for plan, participant_id, participant_token, and id, plus an enum for kind. The description lists the same resource kinds as the enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Deletes') and the exact resource kinds it handles: expense, payment, checklist item, or place. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling add_* and get_* tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when the user asks to delete a specific entry, e.g. to correct a mistake. It also states a key exclusion: entries added by others cannot be removed. It does not name update_* or get_* siblings as alternatives, but the use condition is clear.

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