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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as destructive, the description adds concrete side effects beyond structured data: 'every member's phone drops it' and 'The payer's own bank row, if any, is removed too.' This meaningfully discloses cascading deletion behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical packs an important side effect into a compact, readable clause.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose and side effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with zero required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the missing guidance on which ID to provide for which deletion case leaves the invocation semantics incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only echoes the two parameter types ('expense' and 'settlement') without explaining how to populate expense_id or settlement_id or that exactly one is likely required. The agent is left guessing about ID selection and requiredness.

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 opens by naming the exact resource and action: 'Delete a group expense or a group settlement.' This specifically distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_transaction, delete_transfer, and delete_split by the 'group' scope, while also noting the payer's bank row is removed.

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 clearly states the intended use case: deleting a group expense or a group settlement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the group-resource framing gives enough context for an agent to pick this over nongroup deletion tools.

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