delete_invoicePermanently delete an invoice from QuickBooks Online. Requires explicit user confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | QuickBooks Id of the Invoice to delete. | |
| company | No | Which connected QuickBooks company to use (name, realm id, or connection id). Optional when only one company is connected. | |
| confirm | No | Must be true. Only set after the user has explicitly confirmed this deletion. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds 'Permanently' and 'Requires explicit user confirmation,' which go beyond the annotation flags. This informs the agent that the deletion is irreversible and requires explicit user consent, adding meaningful behavioral context.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and includes the critical requirement of confirmation. Every word serves a purpose.
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 delete tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits any mention of alternatives (like void_invoice) or potential side effects on linked records. Given the destructive nature and the existence of a void alternative, the description could be more informative. It meets the minimum viability but leaves gaps.
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 100%, so all three parameters (id, company, confirm) have their own descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.
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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'invoice', and adds 'Permanently' to convey irreversibility. This distinguishes it from the sibling void_invoice, which likely voids rather than deletes. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention void_invoice or update_invoice as alternatives for less permanent actions. The only requirement mentioned is user confirmation, which is a precondition, not a usage guideline. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.