delete_crypto_synced_balance_history

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

Annotations only flag destructiveness; the description adds meaningful context that the operation is irreversible and affects Net Worth views. This goes beyond the structured annotation and helps an agent understand impact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Every word contributes.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, irreversibility, and downstream impact. It could mention confirmation/return behavior or contrast with single-entry deletion, but nothing essential is missing.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions for symbol and account_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise action ('Delete ALL historical balance entries'), a specific resource ('synced crypto holding'), and the scope ('ALL'), which clearly distinguishes it from single-entry deletion siblings like delete_balance_history_entry.

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 word 'ALL' implies this is the full-history deletion tool, and 'synced crypto holding' identifies the target. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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