LunchMoney MCP Server

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 effectively explains the dependency check behavior, failure conditions, and response format (returns dependents and counts). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling specifics.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the action and key constraint, while the second explains the failure behavior and response. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 no output schema, the description does well by explaining the dependency check and response format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether deletion is permanent/reversible or providing examples of dependency types beyond those listed.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'category_id' parameter can refer to either a category or category group, adding important semantic context beyond what the schema provides. However, it doesn't explain the numeric format or validation rules.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a single category or category group'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'force_delete_category' by specifying this is the standard deletion method with dependency checks.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('if there are no dependencies') and when not to use it ('if there are dependents'). It implicitly contrasts with 'force_delete_category' as the alternative for cases with dependencies, offering clear decision criteria.

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