brc_delete_sales_credit_note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the two-step confirmation process and the meaning of confirmWrite. However, it omits other important behavioral traits: what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversibility, impact on related records), required permissions, error conditions, or success response format. This leaves gaps 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 compact with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The instructions in the second sentence are dense but necessary. Minor improvement could be separating the instructions into bullet points, but it remains readable and efficient.

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 the complexity (destructive action with confirmation flow) and absence of output schema, the description covers the confirmation process well but lacks details on what happens after a successful deletion (e.g., return value, side effects). It also does not mention prerequisites like permissions or system state (e.g., note must exist). This makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 75%, high. The description adds significant value for the critical parameter confirmWrite by explaining its role in the two-step confirmation, complementing the schema. Id and companyName are already well-described in the schema. The parameter confirmDelete (with default false) is not mentioned in the description, but it is optional and less critical. Overall, the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Deletes a BRC sales credit note by id using timestamp confirmation', specifying the verb and resource. The tool name and description together effectively distinguish it from sibling delete tools targeting other entities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other delete tools, losing a point for full differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step guidance: first call without confirmWrite:true returns confirmation_required and preview; then retry with confirmWrite:true only after user confirmation. Also warns that 'preflight is not confirmation'. This is strong, but it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting), so it's not a perfect 5.

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