discard_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a confirmation/error return, but does not disclose that discarding is permanent, whether permissions are needed, or what happens to associated bill items. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 concise with a clear structure, including purpose, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section is redundant with the schema.

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 description covers the main purpose, parameter, and return value. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, it omits important context about permanence and side effects, making it only partially complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains 'invoice_no: Invoice Number of the bill', adding meaning beyond the schema's title. It lacks detail on how to obtain the invoice number, but provides the core semantic.

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 'Discards a draft Bill' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_bill or open_bill. The inclusion of 'draft' clarifies the target scope.

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 explicitly targets 'draft Bill', providing clear scope of use (only for drafts). However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope limitation is evident from the verb and resource.

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