delete_manual_compound_entry_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that only the connection is deleted, not the file or entry, which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotence or any side effects, leaving the idempotentHint=true unaddressed.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no redundant words and conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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?

As a simple deletion tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not disambiguate from the nearly identical sibling 'delete_manual_entry_file', nor does it address the schema's file_id description error. The context around compound vs regular entries is undefined.

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 schema covers both parameters, but the description for file_id is erroneous ('the id of the currency'), and the tool description does not correct this or clarify that manual_entry_id refers to a compound entry. The simple names are self-explanatory, but the misleading schema text and lack of clarification reduce the score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as the 'connection between file and manual compound entry'. This distinguishes it from deleting the entry or file themselves, though the potential confusion with the sibling tool 'delete_manual_entry_file' is not fully resolved.

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 like 'delete_manual_entry_file' or 'delete_manual_entry'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about the difference between manual entry files and manual compound entry files.

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