remove_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It implies removal from the records but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion is soft or hard, what happens to linked payments or exports, or what permissions are required. Only the user-intent precondition is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a scoping clause after the dash. Nothing is redundant and the constraint arrives before any elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, the omission of reversibility and side-effect information leaves a meaningful gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents its format ('ID výdaje (název PDF bez přípony)'). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Odebere přijatou fakturu z evidence' — removes a received invoice from the records) and pairs it with a scope condition. It does not name or contrast any sibling such as add_expense or mark_expense_paid, and the wording switches from 'expense' in the tool name to 'received invoice' in the text, which is understandable in-domain but not fully crisp.

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?

A clear precondition is given: use it only when the user has explicitly deleted the invoice or does not want it recorded. That is real when-to-use guidance. There is no when-not guidance beyond that and no alternative tool is named.

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