delete_invoice_payment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description 'Delete a payment' adds no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or prerequisites beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely short and to the point, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices specificity that would help with sibling differentiation, but for a simple delete operation, minimalism is acceptable.

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?

The tool is simple with clear schema, but the description fails to explain the relationship between invoice_id and payment_id, nor does it clarify whether the operation is idempotent (although annotations hint at it). It lacks enough context to be fully usable without guessing.

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?

Both parameters (invoice_id and payment_id) have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 the action (Delete) and the object (a payment), which is clear. However, it does not specify that this is a payment attached to an invoice, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like delete_payment or delete_outgoing_payment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many payment-related delete tools in the sibling list, the description should clarify the specific scenario (e.g., deleting a payment from an invoice) but does not.

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