Delete Expense

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial context: 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', which reinforces the irreversible nature. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches behavioral understanding beyond structured data.

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 concise with two English sentences and two Spanish equivalents. It is front-loaded with the key action. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but still efficient. No unnecessary fluff; every phrase adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is adequate. It specifies the core action and its irreversibility. For a delete operation, this completes the context needed by an agent, though it could briefly mention the output format.

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 tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the input schema. The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'id'. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra 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 clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('expense by its ID'). The verb 'delete' and the noun 'expense' are specific, and the mention of 'ID' clarifies the input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_expense' or 'list_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 description implies use when wanting to remove an expense permanently, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_expense' for modifications). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The inclusion of 'This action cannot be undone' hints at caution but is insufficient.

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