billy_delete_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly communicates the mutation nature (WRITE) and the two-step confirm pattern. However, it does not disclose error behavior or reversibility.

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 with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

For a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and constraints. It lacks information about the return value, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to decide if it's the right tool.

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 confirm parameter description in the schema already explains its role, and the description adds no new details about parameters. The id parameter lacks description in both schema and text. Given 50% schema coverage, the description provides marginal added value.

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 'Delete a draft invoice' clearly states the verb and resource, and further specifies the scope (draft only) and restriction (approved/paid cannot be deleted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like billy_approve_invoice or billy_update_invoice.

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 notes that it is a WRITE operation requiring confirm:true, guiding the agent on mandatory usage. It also states that approved/paid invoices cannot be deleted, but does not mention alternative tools or actions for those cases.

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