Delete Expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is destructive ('Delete'), but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the transaction_id does not exist, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a deletion tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It efficiently communicates the essential action and parameter in eight words.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable for invocation. However, since there are no annotations and this is a destructive operation, it leaves gaps around error behavior, permanence, and whether deletion cascades to related data.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'transaction ID', which echoes the parameter name but adds only minimal meaning; it does not explain where to obtain the ID or how to handle invalid or missing IDs.

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 states a specific action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('an existing expense'), and the exact identifier used ('by transaction ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_expense, edit_expense, or list_expenses.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when deletion is appropriate, or what prerequisites must be met (e.g., the expense must already exist and have a known transaction_id). The description only states the action without contextual routing.

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