Lunch Money MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects on related data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise at just 5 words. Every word earns its place: 'Delete' (action), 'a budget' (resource), 'by ID' (parameter reference). There's zero waste or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like what the tool returns (success confirmation? error messages?), what happens to budget-associated data, or system behavior constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description mentions 'by ID' which corresponds to the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's obvious from the parameter name. It doesn't explain what format the ID should be (though schema indicates integer), where to find budget IDs, or what happens if an invalid ID is provided.

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 the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a budget by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deleteAsset' or 'deleteTransaction' by specifying the budget resource type. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a soft or hard delete, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., budget must exist), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated transactions), or when to choose other tools like 'updateBudget' instead. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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