invoice_deleteDelete an invoice entered wrongly, by id or reference: the record, its payments and its letter history. The id is not reissued, so a gap in the DUN series is the record that a deletion happened.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice | Yes | The chased invoice: its id (DUN-2026-0001) or its invoice reference |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the cascade (record, payments and letter history all removed), the permanence of the id, and the observable side effect of a DUN series gap. It stops short of stating auth requirements, reversibility, or failure behavior.
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?
Front-loaded with the verb and identifier, and the destructive scope is stated immediately after. The trailing sentence about the DUN series gap is a bit indirect but is genuinely informative rather than filler.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the key things an agent must know (what gets removed, that it is permanent) are covered. Auth/permission requirements and error handling remain unstated, a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already documents both id format (DUN-2026-0001) and reference. The description adds only the same id-or-reference duality, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.
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) and resource (invoice) plus the accepted identifiers (id or reference). It is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools like invoice_register and invoice_status, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.
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?
"Delete an invoice entered wrongly" implies the intended use case (correcting a mistaken entry), which is useful framing. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative remedy for a bad invoice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.