Delete expense

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the immediate balance recalculation side effect and the fact that Splitwise can restore a deleted record from the web app. That recovery path is genuinely useful context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the essential risk information: immediate balance impact, user confirmation, and recoverability. The only mild ambiguity is whether expense_id also identifies a payment, given the description mentions both.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents expense_id fully at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or source hints beyond what the schema already says, but nothing is missing either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes an expense or payment") so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling update_expense, but the destructive framing separates it clearly enough in practice.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — "Confirm with the user before calling" — which is the key gating rule for this tool. It does not name alternatives such as update_expense for reversibility-preserving edits, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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