delete_category

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses specific refusal conditions (categories used by transactions or containing children) and an additional requirement (user approval). This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value (purpose, constraints, approval). No unnecessary fluff.

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 delete with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, constraints, and approval requirement. However, the missing parameter format guidance and lack of any mention of return behavior or error handling leave a minor 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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'category', and the description does not clarify whether the parameter expects an ID or a name. This leaves the agent guessing about the correct value format for deletion.

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 tool deletes an empty ZenMoney category, with the verb 'delete' and resource 'ZenMoney category'. It further distinguishes from siblings like create_category or update_category by specifying the empty condition.

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 should only be used for empty categories by stating it refuses categories used in transactions or containing children. It also adds an explicit usage rule requiring Codex to request user approval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for non-empty categories, such as merge_categories.

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