Remove an expense permanently by providing its spending ID. Eliminate unwanted records from Trackfusion to keep financial data accurate.
Delete an expense record permanently
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spendingId | Yes | Spending ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word 'permanently' is a genuine behavioral signal indicating irreversibility, which is the most critical trait for a destructive operation. However, it omits side effects (e.g., impact on spending analytics or categories), authorization requirements, and what happens on success or failure.
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?
Five words, zero waste, and the action verb plus resource are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, including 'permanently', which carries the irreversibility signal. This is an appropriately minimal description for a simple tool.
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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the core action and its irreversibility. But with zero annotations, the description alone must cover behavioral context — it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or return behavior, leaving the agent to guess at the operational contract of a destructive call.
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 100% — the schema already documents 'spendingId' as 'Spending ID', so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is acceptable given the parameter's self-evident purpose from the tool name.
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 names a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('expense record'), and a scope qualifier ('permanently') that distinguishes it from soft-delete variants. It differentiates the tool from its siblings create_spending, update_spending, and list_spendings with no ambiguity.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as update_spending for toggling status or list_spendings for verification. An agent must infer entirely from the verb that this is for removing a spending record; no context distinguishes when deletion is appropriate vs. when an update would suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.