purchase_order_deleteRemove one purchase order with nothing received and never rendered, freeing that month's slot. One with a receipt is refused, naming it. The PO number is never reissued. purchase_order_receive logs arrivals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Purchase order id such as PO-2026-0001, or an exact supplier name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With destructiveHint=true already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: refusal of received orders, that the PO number is never reissued, and that the operation frees a monthly slot. It also notes the related logging behavior of purchase_order_receive. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 efficient and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by eligibility, refusal behavior, and an important permanence note. Each sentence adds distinct information, though 'naming it' is slightly ambiguous and 'freeing that month's slot' is optional flavor. Overall, it uses words well without excess.
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 destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what can be deleted, what will be refused, the side effect of never reissuing the PO number, and the sibling tool for arrivals. It could mention permission requirements or error response shape, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single id parameter, including example format and the alternative of an exact supplier name. The description does not need to add parameter detail and does not materially extend beyond the schema, so a 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Remove one purchase order,' clearly distinguishing this from siblings like purchase_order_get, purchase_order_list, and purchase_order_receive. It further narrows scope by specifying eligibility conditions ('nothing received and never rendered'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 description gives clear conditions for use: only purchase orders with nothing received and never rendered can be removed, and one with a receipt is refused. It also points to the sibling purchase_order_receive for logging arrivals, providing an explicit alternative. It stops short of fully enumerating when to prefer other siblings, but the guidance is materially useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.