delete_income_attachment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the explicit warning of irreversibility ('irreversible') and the need for user confirmation, providing helpful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, a single line with a warning emoji, and front-loads the critical destructive action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete tool with output schema and annotations, the description is minimal but covers the essential destructive context. However, it lacks parameter explanation and fails to mention the attachment relationship, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the income_id parameter or how to obtain it. It only mentions 'income' in the resource context, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's bare type.

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 clearly states the verb 'Elimina' (deletes) and the resource 'adjunto de un ingreso' (attachment of an income), specifying the exact operation. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_expense_attachment by naming the specific resource.

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 implies usage by requiring user confirmation ('Confirmar con usuario'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_income or delete_expense_attachment. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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