delete_expenses_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. Beyond the word 'Delete', it discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, failure modes for accounts in use, or confirmation requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler; the '(Holded API v2)' parenthetical is minor but harmless. It is terse rather than padded.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the structural information is adequate. However, as an unannotated destructive operation it should say more about consequences and error conditions before an agent commits to calling it.

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% with a single well-described `accountId` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., where to obtain the ID), leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 ('Delete an expenses account'), which is unambiguous and lets an agent distinguish it from the list/create/get/update_expenses_account siblings. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the operation is clear from the name and description.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other expenses-account tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the account still has movements or associations. The agent must infer the whole usage context from the tool name alone.

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