delete_balance_history_entry

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

With destructiveHint=true already present in annotations, the description adds useful context by explaining the historical/current distinction and the requirement for an id. It does not contradict the destructive hint and provides additional behavioral constraints beyond what annotations state.

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 two sentences with the action front-loaded. It conveys all necessary information without any redundant or irrelevant content.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the exact source of the id and the constraint that current entries cannot be deleted, which is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the entry_id parameter is already fully described in the schema, including where to find ids. The main description reinforces the historical type constraint but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('a single historical balance entry'), and the method ('by its id'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_account_balance_history by specifying 'historical balance entry' and 'single'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: the id must come from an entry with type=historical in a balance history response. It also provides a when-not ('ephemeral current entries have no id and cannot be deleted') and directs the user to call get_balance_history or get_account_balance_history first to discover ids, which is a clear prerequisite.

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