delete_receipt

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

destructiveHint=true already establishes that this mutates data, so the description would need to add value: whether deletion is permanent or recoverable (recover_document and list_deleted_documents exist as siblings), whether related records cascade, or what auth/company scoping applies. None of that is present, so nothing is added beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical gloss and no filler; it does not waste the reader's time. It is, however, terse to the point of leaving gaps better filled here than nowhere.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and one annotation, the description covers the bare minimum of what the tool does. Given that this is a destructive operation in a crowded family of delete_* tools, the absence of reversibility and scoping information leaves it short of what the complexity warrants.

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 only 50%: 'id' carries no description at all, and the description never says what that id identifies (a corrispettivo id as returned by list_receipts/get_receipt) or how company_id interacts with it. With a coverage gap this size the description should have compensated and does not.

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 ('Elimina un corrispettivo') and glosses the domain term with '(scontrino / ricevuta giornaliera)', so the object of the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as delete_received_document, delete_issued_document, or delete_f24, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or permissions, and no pointer to the sibling alternatives (e.g. delete_received_document vs delete_issued_document). The only usage signal available is the destructiveHint annotation, which the caller must infer from rather than being told directly.

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