delete_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action 'Delete' but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires special permissions, what happens to related data, or error behavior for non-existent IDs. This gap is comparable to the update_drive example, which also scored 2 for lacking such details.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and the essential parameter detail. There is no redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a minimal viable description for a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema. It adequately conveys the core action and target, but lacks caveats like irreversibility or prerequisites. Given its simplicity, it is sufficient but has gaps in providing full context beyond the immediate function.

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%, so the description must compensate. It says 'numeric ID', but the schema already defines expense_id as an integer, so this adds little beyond the schema. It does imply the ID identifies the expense to delete, but it doesn't clarify formats, valid values, or that the record must exist.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource 'expense record' and the key 'numeric ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_expense, get_expenses, and get_expense_summary, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for removing an expense record, and given the sibling tools cover add/get/summary, there is no ambiguity about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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