delete_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the key refusal condition and the inclusive scope, but does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond deletion. It does not contradict annotations (none).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then scope clarification. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage conditions and exclusions. It could mention error behavior or irreversibility, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 has one required integer parameter with zero description coverage. The description does not explicitly define voucher_id beyond the tool's context, leaving the agent to infer that it is the identifier of the draft to delete. This is a gap given the lack of schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (voucher not yet in ledger), and clarifies the scope by including drafts Kitsas itself created. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vouchers and add_purchase_invoice by its destructive nature and target state.

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?

It provides clear conditions for when to use: when a voucher is not yet in the ledger, including drafts. It states what it refuses (ledger vouchers), implying not to use for posted vouchers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' beyond the refusal condition.

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