rm_delete_expense

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and readOnlyHint=false, so the description credibly adds the key operational detail that confirm must be set to True despite its schema default of false. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent avoid an accidental no-op or misuse.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, flags destructiveness, and states the required guard. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 single-resource delete, the description covers the main invocation risk (confirm=True) and the annotations cover the destructive nature. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary. Minor gaps like preconditions or side effects are not critical enough to lower the score further.

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. It effectively explains the confirm parameter's required value, which is essential, but it does not elaborate on expense_id; while expense_id is self-explanatory, the description leaves some semantic burden to the schema and naming convention.

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 and resource ('Delete an expense item'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like rm_get_expense, rm_create_expense, and rm_update_expense. The destructive caveat further reinforces the action's nature.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent this is the deletion operation within the expense CRUD family, and gives a critical invocation requirement ('requires confirm=True'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when deletion should be avoided, so the usage guidance is mostly implied.

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