delete_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete an expense,' which reveals the basic action but not the destructive permanence, potential cascading effects, idempotency, or error behavior. The agent is not warned that this operation likely cannot be undone.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it instantly scannable. Every word 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It tells the agent what action to perform but not what happens after success or failure, what a response would look like, or whether there are side effects. The low parameter complexity mitigates this somewhat, but the missing behavioral context leaves the definition incomplete.

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 merely restates that the operation uses an ID without adding any new meaning beyond the parameter name 'id.' It does not clarify the source of the ID, how to obtain it, or any special constraints beyond the schema's integer and exclusiveMinimum values.

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 uses a specific action verb 'Delete' and names the resource 'expense' plus the identifying mechanism 'by its ID.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_expense, list_expenses, and monthly_summary, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it: any time an expense needs to be removed. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the expense does not exist. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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