Remove a budget expense from a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses case-insensitive matching, an error on zero matches, and that a multi-match returns a numbered list with nothing deleted. It omits permission requirements and whether deletion is reversible or undoable, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and matching rule, then the three outcome branches in the order an agent will encounter them. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description explains return behavior for each branch (deleted, error, numbered list), which is the key missing piece. It lacks authorization or reversibility notes, the one thing an agent would still want before calling.

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%, so each parameter is already self-documenting. The description restates the substring semantics and explains the disambiguation purpose of date/amount/currency filters, which adds only marginal meaning beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (removes a budget expense from a Wanderlog trip) plus the matching mechanism (substring of the description), which separates it from sibling mutations like wanderlog_remove_place and wanderlog_edit_expense without the agent needing to open another schema.

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 gives a concrete retry protocol: if several expenses match, re-call with a more specific description or add a date/amount/currency filter. It doesn't explicitly contrast with wanderlog_edit_expense or wanderlog_list_expenses as a pre-check alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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