delete_expens

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

The description 'Delete Expense' adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It does not mention permanence, cascade effects, permissions, or error scenarios, so it fails to add value beyond the structured data.

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 extremely concise—just two words—and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation, though it is slightly under-specified in terms of informative content.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description combined with annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) provides basic completeness. However, it lacks details on return values, failure modes, or prerequisites, making it minimally sufficient.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no direct parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 'Delete Expense' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (expense), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_expens, get_expens, and update_expens. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_expense_action or other delete operations. The description only states the action without any context or exclusions.

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