mmex_currencies_delete

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic delete action without disclosing side effects (e.g., impact on existing transactions using the currency), error conditions, or permission requirements. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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, using a single action sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick parsing. However, it could be slightly more structured with headings or context separation.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, and the presence of an output schema (not shown) likely handles return value documentation. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for a safe and informed invocation, especially given the risk of deleting a referenced currency.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clearly explaining each parameter's role: 'id' is the currency ID, 'db_path' is the optional database path, and 'db_key' is the optional encryption key. It also notes fallback to environment variables, adding practical meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 'Delete a currency from the MMEX database' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the required parameters, establishing the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate this delete operation from sibling delete tools for other entities (e.g., accounts, payees), resulting in a slight lack of distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mmex_accounts_delete or mmex_categories_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as checking whether the currency is referenced by other records, nor any context about when deletion is appropriate.

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