Delete an expense by its ID to remove it from your records.
Delete an expense entry by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the expense to delete. |
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion action but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects related data, or whether any authorization is required. This leaves the destructive implications under-specified.
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. It states the verb and the target efficiently.
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 one-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks behavioral caveats and usage context. An agent can call it correctly, but not know about permanence or side effects, so it is only minimally complete.
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 already provides full coverage (100%), including the type, constraints, and a description of 'id'. The description adds no new semantic information beyond saying 'by id', so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('expense entry') with a clear identifier ('by id'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_expense, get_expense, and update_expense.
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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete' – an agent can infer it is for removing an expense, but there is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from update_expense.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.