delete_additional_income

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by adding 'permanently', which is meaningful context about irreversibility. It does not contradict the annotations and adds value beyond the structured metadata, though it does not detail side effects or authorization 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The action, target, system, and permanence are all packed efficiently, and each word contributes meaningful information.

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, combined with the destructive annotation and the schema, is fully sufficient. The return value is not described, but given the low complexity and presence of a destructiveHint, this is not a meaningful gap.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Additional income id', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('additional income or expense entry'), and the system ('Quipu'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like update_additional_income or get_additional_income because the verb is explicit and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when an additional income/expense entry should be permanently removed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using update_additional_income when the entry should be retained but modified, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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