Delete Recurring Invoice

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds that deletion is permanent, does not affect previously generated invoices, and requires confirmation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences in English and Spanish. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundancy, though the bilingual version slightly lengthens it.

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 tool's destructive nature and the output schema, the description covers key aspects: permanence, scope (template only), and safety requirement. It is complete enough for safe 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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the need for 'confirm=true' but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for permanently deleting a recurring invoice template, distinguishing it from deleting generated invoices. The verb 'delete' and resource 'recurring invoice template' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'delete_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 explains that it deletes only the template and future runs, not past invoices, and requires the 'confirm' parameter to prevent accidental deletion. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like pause or resume.

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