Delete invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The word 'Permanently' usefully reinforces irreversibility, but the description says nothing about effects on linked records such as payments or whether deletion fails when an invoice has payments attached.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is close to under-specification but nothing written is wasted.

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 destructive, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the safety hints are supplied by annotations, so the description need not explain return values. However, an irreversible delete should say what happens to dependent data and what errors are possible, and that is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema itself documents invoiceId. The description adds no semantics about format, source of the ID, or whether IDs come from wave_list_invoices or wave_get_invoice, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

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 ('delete') plus a specific resource ('invoice'), which clearly separates it from siblings like wave_delete_customer, wave_delete_estimate, or wave_delete_invoice_payment. The adverb 'Permanently' adds a meaningful qualifier about the nature of the operation, though there is no explicit contrast with wave_update_invoice or any void/archive alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many invoice siblings (update, clone, send). An agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the removal path rather than an update or reversal path.

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