delete_expensePermanently delete a specific expense by its ID to correct errors and maintain accurate financial records.
Delete an expense by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete') but does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, authorization requirements, or what happens if the id does not exist. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify the response behavior.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
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 delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context such as irreversibility and error handling, which an agent would benefit from knowing before invoking a destructive operation.
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%, but the single parameter 'id' is self-explanatory as an integer identifier. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by specifying that deletion is by id, but it does not explain id semantics (e.g., expense id vs. other 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('expense') with a clear identifier ('by id'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like add_expense, update_expense, and list_expenses, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage (delete when you have an expense id) but does not state exclusions or mention related tools like update_expense or list_expenses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.