timeiq_expense_category_delete

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

Description labels the action as delete but lacks details on consequences (e.g., is it permanent?, what happens to associated data?). No annotations are provided to fill the gap, and the dry_run parameter is absent from the description.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is too brief for the complexity of the tool and fails to include necessary details about parameters or usage.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters (one undocumented), the description does not sufficiently inform the agent about prerequisites, side effects, or how to safely execute the deletion.

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 description mentions 'by its slug' but does not explain what slug is or how to obtain it. The dry_run parameter is not described, leaving its purpose unclear despite 0% schema description 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 clearly states the action (delete), resource (expense category), and identifier (slug), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, or list.

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 like archive or activate. The dry_run parameter is not explained in the description, missing an opportunity to clarify testing usage.

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