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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it cascades to payments and letter history, and the invoice id is never reissued, leaving a permanent gap in the DUN series. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 front-load the core action and scope, then add the important consequence about id non-reissuance. No wasted words.

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, the description covers what is deleted, how to identify the target, and the long-term numbering consequence. No output schema is needed for a delete operation, so the definition is complete.

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 fully documents the single 'invoice' parameter with a format example and max length. The description restates 'by id or reference' but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('an invoice from the register'), and the identification methods ('by id or reference'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling read/report tools by clearly describing a destructive action with scope.

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 phrase 'entered wrongly' provides clear context for when deletion is appropriate, and the destructive scope is obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the qualifier gives adequate usage direction.

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