delete_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, without mentioning permanence, side effects, error handling, or permissions. This is a clear gap for a mutating tool.

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?

A single short sentence that is immediately clear and contains zero filler. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool's low complexity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action and target. It could mention permanence or error behavior, but these are not critical for a simple delete operation.

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 single required parameter expense_id is given semantic meaning via 'by its ID'. The schema provides type and requiredness, and the description adds the mapping to the resource. Adequate for one simple parameter.

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?

Very specific: verb 'Delete', resource 'expense', and identifier 'by its ID'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_expense, update_expense, and 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?

Usage is implied: to remove an expense, use this tool. But it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use update_expense instead) or provide exclusions/requirements.

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