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

The description explicitly reveals the soft-delete behavior, the lack of cascade deletion for line items and payment_means rows, the orphaning effect, and that reversal is only possible at the database level. These are material side effects that go beyond the destructiveHint annotation and should influence an agent's decision to call the tool.

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 core operation and critical caveats are front-loaded and written densel y, with no filler. The redundant 'REQUIRED: invoice_id' line repeats schema info, which keeps it from being perfectly lean.

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?

The description contains everything an agent needs to decide whether to call and whatto expect: soft delete, orphaned rows, database-only reversibility, and required argument. The output schema covers return values and the input schema covers workspace/dempotency details, so no critical context 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters, including workspace_id's conditional requirement and idempotency_key behavior, so the description adds no new parameter semantics. Its only param note, 'REQUIRED: invoice_id', duplicates the schema's required field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete an invoice from Well') and immediately qualifies it as a soft delete. This clearly distinguishes it from update/company/person siblings, so an agent knows exactly what action is offered.

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 what the operation does but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the verb 'delete', which is a reasonable but implicit signal.

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