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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is expected. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deleting frees the month's slot, makes the invoice creditable again, and dependent notes are refused. This makes the operational effect and a key failure condition clear.

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 dense sentences carry all necessary information: eligibility criteria, outcome, and the alternative when deletion is not allowed. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 action with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains when deletion is allowed, what happens if it is not, what the effect is, and what to do instead. No output schema is present, but none is needed for this level of complexity.

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%, with the id parameter fully described as a credit note id like CN-2026-0001 or an exact client name. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one credit note', and immediately scopes it to notes 'never posted to its invoice and never rendered'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like credit_note_create, credit_note_get, and credit_note_pdf, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: only notes never posted and never rendered, and that notes with a dependent are refused. It also names an alternative action, 'issue a fresh note to reverse a sent one', which routes the agent away from deletion when a note has already been sent.

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