删除记账

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a write/destroy operation, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing: no statement that deletion is irreversible, no permission or ownership requirement, no mention of whether related entries (recurring transactions, budgets, analytics aggregates) are affected, and no confirmation 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 sentence is front-loaded and contains zero padding, so it is not verbose. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline — there is only one clause and it duplicates the structured fields.

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, irreversible single-record delete with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and only a single annotation hint, the description carries almost none of the burden it must. An agent could not call this safely or confidently from the description alone.

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% for the single required parameter `id`, and the description provides no compensating meaning. At most it implies the id identifies an expense record, but it never states the id's format, source, or whether it is the expense id versus a category or purchase id.

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 text "删除记账记录" only restates the tool name (expense.delete) and title (删除记账) in Chinese. It is a tautology rather than a description: it adds no scope, no distinction from siblings such as expense.update or purchase.delete, and no detail about what an "记账记录" is in this system.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With close siblings like expense.update, expense.list, and purchase.delete present, the definition gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over the alternatives or for confirming a record should be deleted rather than updated.

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