Delete a liability record by its ID and accounting year. Removes the specified liability from the Money S3 system to keep financial data accurate.
Delete a liability by ID and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Liability record ID | |
| year | Yes | Accounting year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Delete' conveys destructive intent, but that is already visible in the tool name. Nothing is disclosed about permanence, cascading effects on related records, idempotency, or behavior when the id/year combination does not exist. For a destructive operation, this is a meaningful gap.
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 terse sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place for a two-parameter delete tool, though it is so minimal it borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It identifies the resource and required identifiers, which is enough to attempt an invocation, but it leaves the agent blind to post-conditions: success/failure behavior, permanence of deletion, and whether related records are affected. A simple tool needs less, but this falls below the minimum viable bar.
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%: 'id' is documented as 'Liability record ID' and 'year' as 'Accounting year' with explicit bounds. The description's 'by ID and year' adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It earns minor credit for implying both parameters jointly identify the record.
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 verb ('Delete'), a resource ('liability'), and the identifying scope ('by ID and year'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling read/create tools like m3_liabilities and m3_create_liability, and the resource name separates it from other m3_delete_* tools. However, it never explicitly contrasts with any sibling, so it stops short of a 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?
No when-to-use guidance, alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling listing that this is the deletion counterpart to m3_liabilities/m3_create_liability, and there is no guidance about when not to use it. The basic operation is implied, but nothing more.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.