delete_refund_receiptPermanently delete a refund receipt from QuickBooks Online. Requires explicit user confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | QuickBooks Id of the RefundReceipt 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 signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the deletion is permanent and requires explicit user confirmation. This enriches the safety profile for the agent without contradicting the structured hints.
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 with zero filler. The action is stated first, followed by the key safety constraint. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool with full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: permanent deletion, the entity, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 100%: id, company, and confirm all have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('refund receipt') and adds the critical qualifier 'permanently'. This clearly distinguishes the operation from send/void/update variants and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even 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?
The description states the core condition for use: the user must have explicitly confirmed deletion. It also communicates that this is a permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., voiding) or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.
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.