receipt_delete

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: returns false if the key does not exist, which is useful for an agent to know the outcome of a delete attempt. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires confirmation, or any side effects beyond the return value.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the target, and the return value for a missing key. However, it lacks context about whether the deletion is permanent, any prerequisites (e.g., the receipt must exist), or how the key is structured. The output schema exists but the description doesn't need to explain return values beyond the false case.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'key'. The description says 'by key' but does not explain what a key is, its format, or how to obtain it. Since there is only one parameter and the description names it, it provides minimal but not complete semantics.

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 ('delete') and resource ('receipt by key'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like receipt_edit and receipt_add. It clearly identifies the operation and the target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 implies usage: call this when you need to delete a receipt by its key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context (receipt_edit, receipt_add) makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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