delete_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral information is the verb 'delete,' which is already present in the tool name. There is no mention of irreversibility, required permissions, error behavior, side effects, or any nuance beyond the inherently destructive action. The description adds zero value beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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, grammatically clear sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core action and scope. However, its brevity reflects a lack of substantive content rather than purposeful conciseness, so it does not fully earn an exemplary rating.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation with no annotations and an output schema that is not visible, the description is incomplete. It does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether the deletion is permanent, or any additional context an agent would need to safely invoke the tool. The presence of an output schema might explain return values, but without descriptions of invocation context or outcomes, the tool remains under-specified for proper use.

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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters 'group_id' and 'expense_id.' It does not explain what these IDs refer to, how to obtain them, or any constraints. The description merely echoes the action without clarifying the parameters, failing to compensate for the total lack of schema-description detail.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('an expense') within a defined scope ('from a group'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_expense and get_balances by the verb and resource, so an agent can understand its purpose without inspection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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