Delete Expense

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

Without annotations, the description is the only signal about side effects; 'Delete' unambiguously communicates a destructive mutation. It doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, idempotent, or whether it affects balance/summary data, but for a simple one-parameter delete the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence containing exactly the needed action and resource; no filler, redundancy, or buried details. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter delete tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. Minor missing context around side effects and return behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 schema already explains expense_id as 'ID of expense to delete'. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not contribute extra semantic value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an expense entry'), stating the tool's function plainly. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like add_expense and edit_expense, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 by the verb: call this when an expense should be removed. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, so the agent must infer the context from the tool name and sibling set.

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