delete_sales_receipt

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say the operation is irreversible, what permissions or entity states are required, whether linked transactions (payments, deposits) are affected, or what the response contains on success or failure.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, unambiguous and free of filler, so nothing is wasted. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency, which is the wrong kind of short for a destructive tool.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema and a nested undocumented parameter, the definition is missing the information an agent needs to call it safely. Irreversibility, required identifier form and side effects on related transactions are all absent.

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 0% and the single nested parameter "idOrEntity" is entirely undocumented, yet the description adds nothing to explain it. A reader cannot tell from either field whether it accepts a bare ID string, a receipt entity object, or both, which matters for the nested additionalProperties structure.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a sales receipt") and the QuickBooks Online context, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_sales_receipt, update_sales_receipt, create_sales_receipt and search_sales_receipts. It stops short of stating scope, such as whether deletion is by ID only or by entity object.

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 at all: no prerequisites (e.g., receipt must be in an unposted/open state), no mention of voiding versus deleting, and no pointer to alternatives such as delete_refund_receipt. An agent must infer everything from the verb alone.

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