delete_recurring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key side effect that already-posted expenses are not removed, but it does not clarify whether the recurring rule is deleted or merely disabled, nor does it mention reversibility or permissions.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the most important caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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-integer-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the key behavioral boundary. The only real gap is explicit id phrasing, but the context strongly implies the id is the recurring expense id.

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 input schema has one required integer id with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions the id parameter. An agent can infer that id identifies the recurring expense, but the description adds no explicit parameter-level meaning to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and a specific resource ('a recurring expense'), and the second sentence clarifies scope by saying posted expenses are left in place. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_expense, which would be used for existing posted expenses.

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?

The second sentence implies the intended scope: this stops future recurring behavior without touching already-posted expenses. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over delete_expense or another alternative, so usage guidance remains mostly inferred.

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