tally_delete_master

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), yet the description adds material behaviour the annotations cannot: the call is preview-only and changes nothing, blockers surface as WRITE_REJECTED with in-use masters (group with ledgers, unit in use, item with movements), and completion requires tally_confirm_write. That is exactly the kind of two-step semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling routing, followed by the refusal behaviour and then the write workflow. Every paragraph carries distinct information, though the middle refusal paragraph could be compressed without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics: a preview payload plus a confirmToken, and a WRITE_REJECTED outcome when the master is in use. For a destructive, confirmation-gated tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 67%, and the description restates the kind list in prose, reinforcing the enum's semantics, plus the name field ('by its exact name') and company behaviour are documented in the schema. It adds scoping value (which master kinds are eligible) but no additional syntax or format hints for the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and enumerates every resource kind it covers (group, cost centre, unit, stock group, godown, stock item, voucher type, budget), then explicitly routes ledgers to the sibling tool tally_delete_ledger. An agent can distinguish this from tally_delete_ledger, tally_delete_voucher and tally_alter_master without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing (ledgers → tally_delete_ledger) and a precise operating procedure: this call only previews, the user must approve the preview, and only then call tally_confirm_write with the token. It also states the exclusion condition (never confirm unprompted or unseen), leaving nothing to inference.

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