delete_expense

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the delete action and parameter meaning, omitting whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what happens if the ID is not found.

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 text is brief and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with the schema, but overall the description avoids unnecessary detail.

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 a minimal schema, the description is insufficient. It should mention permanence, permission requirements, or side effects; the presence of an output schema does not excuse this gap.

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 schema only defines expense_id as an integer with the title 'Expense Id'. The description repeats that it is 'The ID of the expense to delete' without adding format, constraints, or examples that would compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource (delete an expense by ID), making the tool's basic action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings add_expense or list_expenses, but the operation is clearly distinct.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or warnings. The description implies destructive intent but does not state permanence, required permissions, or error behavior.

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