books_delete_invoice

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive, idempotent operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation hints, such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated records (payments, estimates), or any authorization requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Delete an invoice from Books'. It is concise, direct, and uses no filler words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the accounting context implies potential side effects (e.g., deleting an invoice that has payments, credits, or linked estimates). The description provides no information about these consequences, prerequisites, or reversibility. The annotations cover the high-level destructive nature, but the description lacks the depth needed to fully understand the operation's impact.

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 schema has one parameter, invoice_id (type string), with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or clarify its format, requiredness (though required is in schema), or any constraints. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but because the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('an invoice from Books'), using a specific verb and resource pair. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'books_get_invoice', 'books_create_invoice', and 'books_update_invoice' by making the deletion intent unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'books_update_invoice' or 'books_void_credit_note'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The implied usage is limited to 'delete an invoice', but no explicit context or comparative guidance is given.

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