delete_crypto_synced_balance_history

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

The description adds that deletion is irreversible and impacts Net Worth views, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying consequences. It also underscores the scope ('ALL'), providing valuable behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Each sentence adds critical information.

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 bulk delete with clear annotations and complete schema, the description covers the essential behavior and consequences. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but that's acceptable for a delete tool without an output schema.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions (e.g., symbol as ticker, account_id as synced crypto account). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'ALL historical balance entries for a synced crypto holding,' clearly differentiating it from siblings like delete_balance_history_entry by emphasizing 'ALL' and 'synced crypto holding.'

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 context (irreversible, affects Net Worth) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like delete_balance_history_entry or delete_account_balance_history. Usage must be inferred from the name and scope.

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