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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral consequences: drafts are deleted outright, finalized deletions require explicit confirmation, and the BOS number is never reissued, leaving a gap in the series. This gives an agent practical knowledge about side effects and domain-level implications of the deletion.

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 three focused sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the nuanced rules about finalized documents and BOS number reuse are concise yet complete. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 delete operation with only two parameters, complete schema descriptions, and a destructive annotation, the description covers the essential behavior and consequences. It explains the difference between deleting drafts and finalized documents, the confirmation flag, and the lasting series gap. No output schema is present, and none is needed for this action.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the BOS number in the deletion context and why confirm_finalized is required for finalized documents, including the local-copy rationale. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 a bill of sale by its BOS number.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sale_create, sale_finalize, and sale_update. The rest of the description reinforces the destructive delete purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when deletion applies and how finalized versus draft documents are handled. It explicitly states that a finalized document requires confirm_finalized=true and explains why this is necessary. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use deletion, but the unique delete action makes those exclusions less critical.

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