delete_ntos_invoices_inv_nos

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional context such as side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. For a destructive tool, this is insufficient even with annotations present.

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 a single short sentence, front-loading the essential action. It is concise with no wasted words, though the inclusion of Georgian text in parentheses slightly adds redundancy for an English interface.

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?

Given the tool is destructive and has no output schema, the description should provide more context about post-operation state, reversibility, or constraints. It currently lacks completeness for safe agent usage.

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 100% with both parameters documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Unlink a waybill from an invoice') and the resource (waybill-invoice link). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'save_ntos_invoices_inv_nos' (create link) and 'delete_invoice_desc' (delete description), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which unlinking is appropriate. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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