delete_invoice_desc

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

The 'destructiveHint' annotation already indicates this is a destructive action, and the description confirms deletion. However, it does not add additional behavioral details like irreversibility, side effects on dependencies, or error conditions, which would be valuable 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?

The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence with a parenthetical translation. While efficient, it lacks a structured format such as bullet points or explicit grouping, but it is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 simple delete operation with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely adequate. However, it does not mention the return value or confirmation behavior, which is relevant since no output schema is provided.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Goods line item unique ID' and 'Invoice unique ID'). The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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), the resource (goods/service line item from an invoice), and includes a Georgian translation for context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'save_invoice_desc' (add/edit) and 'get_invoice_desc' (retrieve).

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'del_invoice_request' or other delete operations. No explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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