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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: reconciliation-covered vouchers are refused and the refusal names the count that would be falsified. This helps the agent anticipate rejection behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action comes first, followed by an important restriction and remedy. The trailing 'Free.' is slightly ambiguous but does not undermine clarity; overall the text is efficient and well-ordered.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage conditions, refusal behavior, and an alternative action. It does not describe return values, but given the annotations and simple schema, nothing essential 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 single parameter 'voucher' is fully documented in the schema with type, maxLength, and an example ('VOU-2026-0003'). The description's phrase 'by its VOU number' reinforces the parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Delete a voucher ... by its VOU number,' and adds the intended use case 'entered wrongly.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like voucher_add and indicates its role in correcting entry mistakes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (wrongly entered vouchers), when not to use it (vouchers already covered by reconciliation), and what to do instead (record a correcting voucher). This provides clear routing guidance with no reliance on inference.

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