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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious constraint that the invoice must have no payments and reinforces permanence with 'for good'. It stops short of describing failure behavior or whether dependent records block the call.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and tacks on the two constraints that matter. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 with full annotation and schema coverage, the description supplies the essential precondition and irreversibility. The main remaining gap is what happens when the precondition fails, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage) including the 'From list_invoices' provenance hint. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes an invoice') and adds a meaningful precondition ('that has no payments'). It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling delete tools like delete_change_order or delete_estimate, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 'no payments' clause implies a validity condition, but it never says what to do when the invoice does have payments, nor does it point to an alternative (e.g., voiding or updating via update_invoice). Usage is inferable but not explicitly routed.

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