Delete Expense

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

With no annotations, the description has the full burden and does disclose that deletion is permanent and that restore_expense can undo it. However, the wording is slightly internally inconsistent ('permanently' vs. undo), and it does not mention side effects on related data such as receipts, comments, or group balances.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key fact ('permanently') and ending with the actionable undo path. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the core behavior and undo path, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The lack of detail about what actually gets destroyed (only the expense row, or associated data) and the permanent/undo ambiguity leave an agent with meaningful uncertainty.

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 compensate for the expense_id parameter, but it does not mention it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field itself.

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 action ('Delete an expense permanently') on a clear resource, and the permanence qualifier sets expectations. It is readily distinguished from sibling tools like delete_group or delete_comment by naming the resource type.

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 explicitly names restore_expense as the way to undo the operation, giving an agent a clear remediation path. It does not list when to avoid deleting vs updating, but for a simple deletion the context is adequate.

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