invoice_issued_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on related records) or required permissions. This leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly improved by adding brief behavioral notes without increasing length significantly.

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 tool is a simple delete operation, the description omits crucial context: what happens on success/failure, error cases, and whether the action is reversible. An output schema exists but may not be visible; yet the description should still hint at return behavior. Minimal 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 both 'id' and 'kod' described adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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'), the resource ('issued invoice'), and the system ('AbraFlexi'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'invoice_issued_create' or 'invoice_issued_get' by specifying the delete operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'evidence_delete' or 'product_delete'). It lacks explicit context about prerequisites, such as whether the invoice must exist or if deletion requires authorization.

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