billy_delete_bill

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'WRITE' and mentions the need for confirmation, which implicitly signals destructiveness. However, it does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., irreversibility, impact on related data) or behavior when the bill is not a draft. The input schema's confirm parameter description provides additional detail, so the description adds modest value.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could briefly include parameter hints or context without losing conciseness. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks crucial details: what constitutes a 'draft bill', error handling, id format, and prerequisites. A simple delete operation still benefits from mentioning common pitfalls (e.g., idempotency) or required permissions. The description is too minimal for confident invocation.

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 50% (only the 'confirm' parameter has a description). The description does not explain the 'id' parameter or add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. For a tool with partial schema coverage, the description should clarify parameters like 'id' (e.g., format, source), but it fails to do so.

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 verb 'Delete' and the specific resource 'draft bill', which immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like billy_delete_contact or billy_delete_invoice. The mention of 'draft bill' specifies the scope, helping the agent select the correct tool for deleting a bill that is in draft status.

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 only indicates that it requires 'confirm:true' for execution, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use billy_update_bill instead) or when not to use it (e.g., if the bill is not a draft). There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual exclusions.

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