invoice_issued_unlink_zdd

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens when no bond exists. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 compact sentence with the action verb front-loaded. The parenthetical Czech term 'Vazby ZDD' adds useful domain context without padding.

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 operation with an output schema, the description is close to adequate. It does not clarify that id and kod are alternatives or that at least one should be supplied, and it leaves the accounting implications of removing a ZDD bond unexplained.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including 'Invoice ID' and 'Invoice code (alternative to id)'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but because the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('advance tax document (ZDD) bonding from an issued invoice'), making the action unmistakable. It also clearly differentiates from related siblings such as invoice_issued_link_zdd and invoice_issued_deduct_zdd by describing the inverse 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 intended use is implied: use this tool when a ZDD bond needs to be removed from an issued invoice. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how to choose between the id and kod parameters.

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