delete_cospend_bill

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

Although annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds important behavioral detail: the 403 response with the exact message, the move_to_trash default with reversible behavior, the irreversible hard-delete path, and the restoration method. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence contributes useful information: purpose, permission, error handling, parameter semantics, and return value. The Args/Returns structure makes it easy to scan, and there is no filler or repetition of schema-only data.

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 operation with three parameters, the description fully covers prerequisites, failure modes, recovery options, parameter meanings, and the response format. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether to call this tool and how to invoke it 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 provides no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It explains project_id as a string id, bill_id as an integer id, and move_to_trash with its default value plus the semantic difference between moving to trash and hard-deleting. It also documents the return JSON shape.

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 and resource: "Delete a Cospend bill." It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as delete_cospend_project and delete_cospend_member, and the scope is 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?

It states the required permission level (PARTICIPANT access), the failure condition (deletionDisabled) and what HTTP error to expect, and explicitly routes the agent to update_cospend_project to clear the flag first. It also distinguishes soft-delete versus hard-delete behavior and tells the agent how to restore a soft-deleted bill via update_cospend_bill.

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