delete_expense

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that deleting the wrong row cannot be undone and that user confirmation is required. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent weigh the consequences of invoking the tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second part provides essential usage and safety guidance without redundancy. It is slightly longer than necessary, but every sentence earns its place by adding important operational context.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the key aspects: what to delete, how to get the id, and the need for user confirmation. The presence of destructive and idempotent annotations plus a full output schema means the description does not need to explain return values. Minor gaps, such as related data effects, are not significant for this 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?

The only parameter, expense_id, has full schema description coverage: it says 'id of the expense to delete, from list_expenses.' The tool description reinforces this by telling the agent to use list_expenses to find the id, but it does not add fundamentally new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% coverage.

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 opens with the precise action 'Delete one expense, by id', specifying exactly what resource is affected and how it is identified. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_expense and list_expenses, and no other delete tool exists in the sibling set, so there is no ambiguity.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call list_expenses first to obtain the id and to confirm with the user before deleting. It also explains why this is necessary: ids are not guessable and deletion is irreversible. This gives clear when-to-use and safety guidance beyond just naming the operation.

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