Delete A Payment Application (Owner Invoice)

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanent removal, unrecoverability, repeat call returns 404, and specific error payloads with HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent anticipate consequences and handle errors properly, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 informative but verbose and has redundancy. 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first' convey nearly the same instruction. While front-loaded and well-organized, it could be tightened without losing value.

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 delete operation with two parameters, the description fully covers prerequisites, deletion behavior, error handling (401/403/404), and even the endpoint and API section. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains what to expect (permanent removal) without needing return-value details.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'id' by stating it must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via the list tool first, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'ID' description. This elevates the score above baseline.

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') and the exact resource ('Payment Application (Owner Invoice)') with the identifier basis ('by its id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_payment_application_owner_invoice by explicitly being a delete operation, and the 'based on id' scoping is precise.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when to use this tool relative to other tools (only after resolving the ID). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool, the context is clear and actionable.

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