delete_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'permanently' which hints at irreversibility, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and minimal description, the completeness is inadequate. However, the presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates this by providing structured return information. The description should do more to explain the consequences and constraints of permanent deletion.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'invoice_id' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline would be lower, but since there's only one parameter and its purpose is obvious from context, it meets minimum viability without compensating for the coverage gap.

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 target resource ('an invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_invoice' or 'send_invoice' beyond the obvious verb difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_invoice' or 'send_invoice', nor are there any prerequisites or warnings about irreversible deletion mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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