delete_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Delete' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. For a destructive action, more transparency is needed.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence) with no fluff, but it could be better structured to include essential usage hints. The brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description combined with the output schema provides minimal completeness. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral notes, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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%. The parameter 'expense_id' is named intuitively, but the description adds no extra meaning—it just says 'by ID'. It fails to specify format, source, or constraints beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('an expense entry'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_expense, update_expense, patch_expense, get_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., existence of the expense), and no caution about irreversibility or dependencies. The description lacks any usage context.

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