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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses the concrete consequences: the month's slot is freed and the invoice becomes creditable again, plus the failure mode when a dependent exists. It does not say what happens for an unknown or already-deleted id, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences with the eligibility constraint front-loaded and the refusal case second. Phrasing such as "One with a dependent is refused" is slightly telegraphic but costs no clarity overall.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: preconditions, side effects, and the blocking failure case.

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% and the id property already documents both the CN-YYYY-NNNN format and the exact-client-name option. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

"Remove one credit note" states a specific verb and resource, then narrows the scope to notes never posted to an invoice and never rendered. That scope plus the stated eligibility conditions make it unmistakable against siblings like credit_note_create or credit_note_pdf.

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?

It defines when the tool applies (unposted, unrendered notes) and when it will not (a note with a dependent), and routes the agent to the alternative action in that case: issuing a fresh note to reverse a sent one. Both the use case and the fallback are explicit.

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