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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals destructive behavior. The description adds 'irréversible' (irreversible), reinforcing the destructive nature but not disclosing additional behavioral traits like cascading effects or authorization requirements.

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?

The description is two sentences, extremely short, and to the point. Every word adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and destructive annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the action, target, and irreversibility. It could mention prerequisites or side effects, but for a basic delete-by-ID operation, this is adequate.

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 0%. The description says 'par son identifiant' (by its identifier), explaining that the parameter identifies the income to delete, but it does not name the parameter (income_id) or specify its type. This adds some meaning but could be more explicit.

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 verb 'Supprime' (deletes), the resource 'revenu locatif' (rental income), and the method 'par son identifiant' (by its identifier). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_expense or delete_document.

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 makes it clear this tool is for deleting a rental income by ID, implying use when you need to remove such a record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward delete operation.

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