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

The description discloses the destructive nature of the operation, the state restrictions, and the confirmation mechanism. It also reveals that the first call without confirm returns a summary, which is a behavioral trait not visible in the schema. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements beyond the reserved token note, and there are no annotations to contradict.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important constraint (reserved for studio token). Every sentence adds value: what it deletes, what it refuses, and the confirmation requirement. No wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: target states, refusal conditions, and confirmation flow. It could mention what the summary response contains or what happens after deletion, but the essential information for safe invocation is present.

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 description adds meaning to the confirm parameter by explaining the two-step deletion flow, and clarifies the type parameter's default (quote). It also explains the number parameter's role (document number or Qonto id). With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates for the undocumented id and auth_token parameters by giving context on the deletion flow.

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 pending quotes or draft invoices, with a concrete example (duplicate created by mistake). It distinguishes itself from siblings like qonto_create_invoice and qonto_finalize_invoice by specifying the exact document states it operates on.

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 says when to use it (pending_approval quotes, draft invoices) and when not to use it (refuses sent/approved/finalized documents). It also explains the confirm=true requirement and the two-step behavior, which is essential usage guidance.

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