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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects related data (e.g., transactions linked to the category). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential action and target. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like success/error responses, side effects, or safety considerations. For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, more descriptive detail is needed.

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 aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's implied by the parameter name (e.g., what constitutes a valid category ID, format expectations, or error conditions). This meets the baseline for minimal parameter context.

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 category by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deleteAsset' or 'deleteBudget' by specifying the category resource type. However, it doesn't specify what 'delete' entails (permanent removal vs soft delete), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., category must exist), consequences of deletion, or relationships with sibling tools like 'updateCategory' or 'getCategories'. 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.