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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the journal leaving the books with a finalised payslip, the two-phase confirm protocol, the confirm-required reason response, the refusal conditions, and the whole-batch refusal for missing or foreign ids. This is exactly the destructive-side-effect context an agent needs before committing.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and action, and every sentence carries operational information (journal behavior, confirm workflow, refusal rules, batch semantics). The terse telegraphese is dense but not padded, though the phrasing takes a moment to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the relevant response behavior (confirm-required reason with the would-be deletions) and all edge-case outcomes for a destructive mutation tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears missing.

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 coverage is only 50% (ids is undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does: ids is clarified as batch identifiers where a missing or another business's id refuses the whole batch, and confirm's role is detailed with the resulting behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema's one-line hint.

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+resource (delete payslips) with scope (by id, batch), clearly distinguishing it from sibling finalise_payslips and delete_payrun. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 explicit procedural guidance: without confirm true nothing changes and the reason confirm-required is returned, so ask the user then call again with confirm true. It also lists when the call is refused (locked period, self-finalising pay run). It lacks explicit cross-references to alternative sibling tools, keeping it at 4.

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