Delete Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description discloses that deletion is permanent ('This cannot be undone'), that a repeat call returns 404, and that failures return an error payload with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This adds valuable behavioral context about side effects and error handling not present in 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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement first, followed by usage prerequisites, consequences, error patterns, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence adds distinct information with no filler, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to prepare (resolve id), what happens on success vs failure, and the API endpoint. No output schema is needed, and the description does not leave significant gaps for the agent to guess about.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (id as URL path parameter, project_id as query string parameter). The description adds the constraint that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and advises resolving it via the list tool, which gives the agent a clearer understanding of the id's role beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 opens with 'Delete specified Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice).' which states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)'). It further clarifies with 'Permanently removes the requisition,' distinguishing this from update or show operations on the same resource.

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 explicit guidance: '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.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (only after resolving the id) and effectively when not to use it (without prior confirmation). It names the alternative tool categories (show/list).

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