Delete Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it emphasizes permanence ('This cannot be undone') and specifies that it permanently removes 'Commitments.' It also provides the API endpoint. Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the description reinforces and adds detail without contradiction.

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 relatively concise with 4 sentences, but includes repetition ('This cannot be undone' appears twice). Key information is front-loaded. Could be slightly improved by removing redundancy, but overall efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (delete with 2 parameters), the description covers permanence and required parameters. However, it omits what the response looks like (no output schema), any prerequisites (e.g., invoice status), or error scenarios. The API endpoint is helpful but not essential. More context would improve completeness.

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 full descriptions for both parameters (id, project_id). The description only restates that these are required, adding no additional semantics or usage nuances. Baseline score is 3 as per guidelines.

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 'Delete specified Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)' and 'permanently delete the specified Commitments.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (Requisition/Subcontractor Invoice), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_requisition_subcontractor_invoices_for_commitment or update_requisition_subcontractor_invoice.

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 says when to use the tool (to permanently delete a requisition) and warns that it cannot be undone. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like using update_requisition_subcontractor_invoice for modifications. The required parameters are listed, but usage context beyond permanence is sparse.

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