remove_budget

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

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds valuable context by disclosing idempotency — that it succeeds even if no budget exists. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand edge-case behavior without errors.

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 sentences, no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. The idempotency detail is a valuable addition without bloating the description.

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 tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers all essential aspects. It does not describe return values, but for a removal operation this is typically implicit and not critical given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with both start_date and category_id having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'specific category and period' which maps directly to the parameters. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (remove) and resource (budget) with a scope (specific category and period). It distinguishes itself from siblings like upsert_budget and get_budget_summary by focusing on removal. The idempotency note further clarifies its purpose.

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 when to use this tool (when removing a budget), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the straightforward nature of a delete operation, the context is reasonably clear, but it lacks explicit routing to sibling tools like upsert_budget for create/update scenarios.

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