delete_invoice

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

The description only states 'permanently', implying irreversible deletion. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, cascading deletes, permission requirements, or what happens to associated data.

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 very concise at 4 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. While some might argue for more detail, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It communicates irreversibility but lacks details on success/error behavior, prerequisites, or permissions. Given low complexity, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 the parameter 'invoice_id' described as 'Invoice ID (hashed string)'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 'Delete an invoice permanently' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (invoice). The addition of 'permanently' indicates irreversibility, which adds value. However, it does not specify any scope or nuances like soft delete vs hard delete, but for a simple resource it is sufficient.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like 'mark_invoice_paid' or 'mark_invoice_sent' are for different operations, no context is given about prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist) or scenarios where deletion is not appropriate.

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