invoices_delete_invoice

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description simply repeats the action without adding context such as whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or has cascading effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds no behavioral insight beyond what the annotations already state.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. It avoids fluff and communicates the core action immediately. However, it is so brief that it omits any clarifying context, though for a simple delete operation this may be acceptable. It earns its place but could be slightly richer.

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 has a single required parameter and two optional ones, all well-documented in the schema. Annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior. However, the description fails to differentiate from the void invoice sibling, which is a key decision point. An agent might not know whether to call this or void, limiting completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (invoiceId, altId, altType). The tool description adds no additional semantic details about these parameters, such as format, constraints, or how altId/altType relate. Since the schema already documents them, the description contributes nothing extra.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('invoice'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like invoices_void_invoice or invoices_delete_invoice_schedule, which could be confused with this operation. The purpose is clear but not distinctly framed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of invoices_void_invoice and other delete operations, an agent receives no hints about prerequisites, conditions, or when deletion is appropriate instead of voiding. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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