delete_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the critical behavioral trait: the default is a non-destructive dry-run and confirm=true is required to actually delete. It omits irreversibility and permission requirements, but the safety pattern is well communicated.

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?

Front-loads the destructive behavior and dry-run default in the opening sentences, then lists args compactly. The Args block is slightly verbose but each entry earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the description explains what the dry-run returns and what confirm does, and covers all parameters. Complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, with minor gaps around permissions and reversibility.

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, and it documents all four params. The acting_as explanation (the conversant member confirmed after connect_tricount, with 'yo/me/conmigo' mapping) adds real semantic value; entry_id and tricount are covered only briefly.

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?

States a specific verb (elimina) and resource (movimiento: gasto, ingreso o reembolso), identifying the entity precisely. It also links to list_expenses as the source of the id, which helps distinguish the workflow from create_expense/create_reimbursement, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

Clearly describes the two-step usage: without confirm=true it only shows what would be deleted, and confirm=true performs the deletion. It also tells the agent where to obtain entry_id via list_expenses. No explicit when-not-to-use vs alternatives, but the operational context is strong.

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