delete_proforma

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that deleting by orderNumber may remove multiple proformas in one call, or what happens if the record is already gone, which is notable since idempotentHint=false implies repeat calls may error.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the two targeting methods come first and nothing redundant is included.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an annotation set that already flags destructiveness, the definition is close to sufficient. It falls short only on irreversibility and the multi-delete consequence of orderNumber, which an agent about to run a destructive call would want stated explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (company, orderNumber, invoiceNumber) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the two keying options but adds no format, precedence, or ambiguity-resolution rules beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a proforma invoice') and adds the two selection keys, so an agent can tell what it removes and how it is targeted. It does not distinguish the tool from the neighbouring reverse_invoice sibling, leaving the proforma-vs-finalized-invoice distinction to be inferred.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions; it never says whether to prefer invoiceNumber or orderNumber, nor points to reverse_invoice as the alternative for non-proforma invoices. The only hint is the parenthetical 'alternative' on orderNumber, which lives in the schema, not the description.

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