Remove Category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it contains an internal contradiction: first sentence says 'permanently deleting' but resolution description in schema says 'confirm deletes (recoverable for 30 days)'. This inconsistency misleads about deletion finality.

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?

Two succinct sentences that front-load the core purpose and key behaviors. Every word is informative, with no fluff.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main workflow and constraints. However, the contradiction between 'permanently deleting' and 'recoverable for 30 days' creates a completeness gap, and the exact format of the conflict response is not fully specified.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining conflict handling and deprecation of 'mode'. This aids understanding of how to use the parameters correctly.

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 tool removes a financial category with two modes (archive or permanently delete) and mentions conflict handling. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_category or remove_account by specifying the resource and operation.

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 explains the two-step process (first call returns conflict) and a constraint (categories with active transactions cannot be deleted). It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives but provides enough context for correct invocation.

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