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. It only says 'Delete an expense' and does not mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, cascading, or restricted by permissions. An agent cannot infer the consequences of calling this tool beyond the basic destructive action implied by the word 'delete'.

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?

'Delete an expense.' is extremely concise and contains no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and the core action is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 operation with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention irreversibility, side effects, permissions, or any caveats about what happens to related data. Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the lack of behavioral and usage context makes the definition insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention expense_id or its meaning. The schema does define expense_id as a required integer, but the description adds no helpful context about what the ID refers to, how to obtain it, or any constraints. Because the coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'an expense', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_expense, update_expense, get_expense, and list_expenses. Even though it is terse, an agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related operations.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an expense should be permanently removed versus updated or archived. It also provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that should be checked before calling delete_expense.

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