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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behaviors beyond the schema: the record is retained in history rather than purged, and invocation is restricted by role (enterer, owner, office). It omits downstream effects such as whether removal alters books/report totals or whether the deletion can be reversed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key consequence. The second sentence is a fragment ('The worker who entered it, the owner or office can.') that reads awkwardly but still carries the permission information without padding.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, soft-delete semantics and authorization, which is decent. It still leaves open failure modes (expense not found, already removed) and any effect on reports or invoicing, which an agent may need before calling.

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 would need to compensate for the single parameter, and it never mentions expense_id. In practice the parameter is a self-evident uuid and 'an expense' implies the identifier, so the gap is minor but real.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Take an expense off the books') and clarifies the removal is soft ('kept in history'), which distinguishes it from expenses_update. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but an agent can tell this is the deletion path in the expenses_* family.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the eligibility note ('the worker who entered it, the owner or office can') tells the agent who may invoke it, which is real guidance. However there is no explicit 'when to use this vs expenses_update' exclusion or precondition about expense state (e.g., already reimbursed or billed).

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