expense_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that deletion is permanent and requires confirmation, and notes the return type (confirmation or cancellation). No contradictions.

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 very concise: two sentences for the main purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words.

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 deletion tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers the action, confirmation behavior, and return type. Could mention irreversibility, but the permanent nature is already stated.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the one parameter (expense_id) by sourcing it from expense_search results. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type definition.

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 (Permanently delete), the resource (expense), and the unique behavior (asks for confirmation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like expense_add or expense_search.

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?

Specifies that expense_id should come from expense_search results, providing clear sourcing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for non-permanent actions.

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