delete_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a destructive tool, it omits critical details: permissions required, whether the delete is permanent or reversible, side effects on related data, and confirmation requirements. The description is a bare restatement of the name.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it is too terse for a destructive operation, leaving essential context unstated.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description is grossly inadequate. It should disclose irreversibility, permissions, and what happens to linked records.

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%, but with only one required parameter (invoiceId) and a simple type, the description's 'by ID' implies the parameter's purpose adequately. Baseline for a single generic param is 3 when schema is minimal.

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 (Delete) and resource (invoice) with its identifier reference. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_invoice or update_invoice, though 'by ID' is generic and doesn't clarify if it's soft/hard delete or recursive.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_estimate, deactivating an invoice). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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