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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioural fact — that the number is not reassigned after deletion — but says nothing about irreversibility, whether issued or invoiced notes can be deleted, or what an error looks like.

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, the destructive action stated first and the numbering consequence second. Nothing is padded or repetitive.

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 whose annotations already flag destruction and idempotency, the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves the agent unsure about preconditions (can a finalized or invoiced delivery note be deleted?) and about the failure mode, which matter for a destructive operation.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Lieferschein-ID'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description does not clarify whether the id is the internal record id or the visible document number, which would have been a useful addition.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Einen Lieferschein löschen'), so the agent knows exactly which object is removed. It does not, however, distinguish this from the neighbouring delete_draft or delete_contract_draft tools, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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?

There is no statement of when to delete versus when to cancel or update a delivery note, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the note must be unissued or uninvoiced), and no pointer to alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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