tally_delete_voucher

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the two-step preview/confirm protocol, the fact that this call mutates nothing and returns a confirmToken, the requirement to show the preview and obtain user approval, and the prohibition on self-initiated confirmation. The preview description does not contradict destructiveHint — it clarifies how the destructive effect is gated through tally_confirm_write.

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 operation and its consequence, then routing guidance, then the input source, then the write protocol. Four short paragraphs, each carrying distinct information — no filler despite the length.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what this call returns (exactly what would be written, plus a confirmToken). For a destructive multi-step tool with a companion confirm tool, the agent has everything needed to call it and to handle the handoff 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance semantics the schema does not: guid and currentDate must come from the same tally_get_vouchers read, and currentDate is the voucher's date as it is now in TallyPrime. The call-failure behavior for a non-loaded company is already documented in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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 and resource ("DELETE a voucher from TallyPrime entirely") and immediately characterizes the effect ("its number becomes a gap in the series"). It names the sibling it is not — tally_cancel_voucher — so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes between alternatives: prefer tally_cancel_voucher for voiding a posted entry to preserve the audit trail, use delete for entries that should never have existed (e.g. a duplicate posting). It also states the source of required inputs ("Give the guid and current date from tally_get_vouchers"), 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.