Delete Expense

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a destructive operation via 'Delete' and discloses that the deleted record is returned for confirmation. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility, but the verb 'delete' makes the side effects clear enough and the return behavior adds useful detail.

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 very short sentences front-load the core action and add a compact note on the confirmatory return. No filler, every word serves a purpose.

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 a full output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the operation and confirms the return payload. It could mention 404 behavior for missing IDs, but the output schema covers error information and the tool is simple enough that this absence does not meaningfully hurt invokability.

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%, with the expense_id field fully documented as 'ID of the expense to delete.' The description only reiterates 'by its ID' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the exact operation 'Delete an expense' with the resource identified by its ID, and notes the return value is the deleted record. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_expense, add_expense, or edit_expense, which perform different actions.

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: call it when you want to delete a specific expense and you have its expense_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use edit_expense to modify instead') or state when not to delete, so guidance rests at the implied level.

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