delete_expense

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive action, but the description does not mention irreversibility, authorization requirements, side effects, or any safeguards, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and what input it expects.

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 one-parameter delete action, the description is minimally functional and an output schema exists. However, given the absence of annotations and the destructive nature of the tool, it would be more complete with a note about permanence or a pointer to related tools for locating the ID.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does specify that the 'id' is the identifier of the expense entry, adding semantic meaning to the plain integer schema. However, it provides no additional context such as where the ID comes from or how to obtain it.

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 ('Delete'), a precise resource ('expense entry'), and the required selector ('by ID'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as update_expense, add_expense, and list_expenses.

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 the tool is used when an expense entry needs to be removed and an ID is available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative tools such as update_expense or search_expenses.

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