delete_budget

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the action is permanent with no undo or archive, errors idempotently when the name does not match, and leaves transactions and account balances untouched. The annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical nuance about scope and consequences.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action and consequences. Every major point earns its place: permanence, side-effect scope, missing-name behavior, and the retirement alternative. It loses a small amount for repeating 'exact, case-sensitive' in both prose and the parameter line, but overall it is tight and readable.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it explains what is deleted, what is not deleted, what happens on a missing name, and when to prefer a non-destructive alternative. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, so nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining 'name' as 'Budget name (exact, case-sensitive).' This adds real semantic value beyond the bare string type. It does not discuss edge cases like empty strings or whitespace, but for a single simple string parameter the guidance is sufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a budget and every per-period amount set on it.' It clearly names the object and the full scope of the deletion, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_budgets or get_budget without needing to open the schema.

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?

It explicitly tells the caller when not to delete: 'To retire a budget while keeping its numbers readable, simply stop reporting on it instead of deleting.' It also points to list_budgets as the companion tool for checking existing names, which is practical and specific.

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