sw_delete_expense

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavior: it is a soft-delete (reversible), it returns {success: true}, and it makes no network call unless confirm:true is set. This explains the side-effect-free preview mode and the restoration path, going well beyond what the annotation alone conveys.

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 three sentences: first states the core action and target, second gives the return value and the restore alternative, third explains the confirm flag behavior. Every sentence carries essential information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the purpose, return value, restoration, and the critical confirm gate. It lacks details about the exact structure of the dry-run preview or potential side effects on related data, but this is minor for a simple delete operation with no output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra nuance for the confirm parameter by explicitly stating that without it there is a dry-run preview and NO network call, which is a meaningful behavioral detail not fully captured by the schema's description.

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 begins with 'Soft-delete a Splitwise expense by id', which is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning sw_undelete_expense for restoration and by describing the dry-run vs. actual deletion behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance by naming sw_undelete_expense as the alternative for restoring an expense. It also clearly explains when to use the tool safely: without confirm:true it performs a dry-run with no network call, and with confirm:true it deletes. This gives the agent clear context on usage and safety.

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