delete_expenseDelete an operating expense by its ID to permanently remove it and its supporting documents from your LMNP accounting records.
Supprime une charge d'exploitation par son identifiant. Les documents justificatifs associés sont également supprimés. Cette action est irréversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expense_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it explicitly states that supporting documents are also deleted and the action is irreversible. These details go beyond the annotation and inform the user of important side effects.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise with no redundant information, and every sentence adds meaningful content.
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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, side effects (document deletion), and irreversibility. It is adequate, though it does not mention error conditions or return values, which are minor for this type of tool.
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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It mentions 'par son identifiant' which explains expense_id as the identifier, but provides no additional details about type or source. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, the added value is minimal.
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 tool deletes an operating expense by its identifier, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions that associated supporting documents are deleted, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_document or delete_furniture.
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 implies usage for deleting an expense and its associated documents, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.