delete_balance_history_entry

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what is deleted and which entries cannot be deleted. It clarifies the 'current' entry edge case, which is valuable beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key constraint and prerequisite in a natural order.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with a strong annotation and complete schema description, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: what to delete, how to find the id, and what cannot be deleted.

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 the parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the id-based deletion but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a single historical balance entry'), and the mechanism ('by its id'). It also distinguishes deletable entries from ephemeral current entries, making the tool's scope 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 clearly explains when the tool applies: the entry must be historical and have an id, and current entries cannot be deleted. The schema reinforces that the id should be discovered via get_balance_history or get_account_balance_history. It does not name alternative deletion tools, but the intended usage context is clear.

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