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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the valuable side effect that transactions are not affected, which goes beyond the hints. It doesn't elaborate on error handling, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary action and critical side effect front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 delete operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core action, the important side effect on transactions, and the ID source. It's adequate, though it could explicitly mention idempotency, but that's already in annotations.

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% and the schema already describes the parameter as 'Budget ID (see list_budgets).' The description echoes this same guidance without adding new format or syntax details, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a budget, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by explicitly noting that transactions are not affected, making the purpose unambiguous even without naming alternatives.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Budget IDs come from list_budgets,' guiding the agent to fetch IDs from the correct source. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., vs. update_budget), but the context is sufficient for typical selection scenarios.

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