Supprimer une note de frais

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns 'Action irréversible' and states that a confirmation is requested if the MCP client supports elicitation. These are useful details not present in the destructiveHint annotation, though the annotation already signals destructive intent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and including only essential warnings. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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 operation with one parameter, the description covers the action, irreversibility, and confirmation handling. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor omissions like error cases or prerequisites prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter with a pattern and a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 starts with 'Supprime une note de frais de BoondManager', clearly stating the action (delete) and the resource (expense note) with a specific system (BoondManager). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_expenses_get or boond_expenses_update, and matches the title exactly.

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 when the agent needs to delete an expense note, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives (e.g., update instead of delete). The irreversibility warning gives some caution but no exclusions or alternatives.

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