Remove a purchase or expense record from KikoBooks by purchase ID. Use this to correct or clean up accounting data when an entry is no longer needed.
Delete a purchase (expense) in KikoBooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_id | Yes | The Purchase/Expense ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that a record is deleted, with no disclosure of irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects on linked records, or error behavior for a nonexistent ID. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the verb and resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no confirmation/permission detail, the description is too thin to let an agent call it safely. It leaves irreversibility and side effects entirely undocumented.
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 100% and the single purchase_id parameter is documented as 'The Purchase/Expense ID to delete.' The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a purchase') and clarifies the domain term as an expense, which helps disambiguate from invoices/bills. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling mutators like void_bill, but the operation and target are 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 on when to delete versus void or reverse, no preconditions, and no mention of related tools such as get_purchase for verifying the record first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.