delete_issued_document

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that by disclosing that documents are moved to a trash (cestino) and are recoverable via recover_document, so the agent knows the effect is reversible. It does not cover restrictions on deletion, side effects on numbering, or what the response returns, but for a two-sentence description this is meaningful disclosure that does not contradict the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the recovery behavior. The document-type list earns its place by helping the agent match user intent, and there is no filler.

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 and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description carries most of the burden and does supply the reversibility story and target scope. The remaining gap is the absence of any constraint about which issued documents may not be deleted, which matters for a destructive tool in a billing domain.

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 50% and the `id` parameter has no schema description at all. The description indirectly resolves this by framing the target as an issued document, telling the agent which resource namespace the id belongs to, but it adds nothing about `company_id` or about id format/nonexistence handling. Baseline 3 for the partial coverage.

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+resource ("Elimina un documento emesso") and enumerates the affected document types (fattura, nota di credito, proforma, preventivo, ordine, DDT), which lets an agent distinguish this from delete_received_document and delete_archive_document without opening a schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear rather than airtight.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns deletion is soft and that recover_document is the undo path, which is genuine routing information. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether documents already sent to SDI or already paid can be deleted), leaving real ambiguity for a destructive operation with many delete_* siblings.

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