delete_expenses_account

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete an expenses account' without mentioning whether the action is irreversible, cascading, or requires special permissions. This is insufficient for a destructive 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?

At four words, the description is very concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices context for brevity; a slightly longer description could improve completeness without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits critical details about the deletion's impact, such as whether it is permanent or if linked records are affected, making it less complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'accountId' described adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'expenses account', following a standard verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_expenses_account' and 'update_expenses_account' by indicating the destructive action, but doesn't specify if it is permanent or soft.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_expenses_account' for modifying an account. There are no prerequisites, warnings about dependencies (e.g., transactions associated with the account), or context for safe usage.

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