beel_delete_by_id

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: invoice retention, the 403-on-retry-without-key quirk, conditional removal timing based on Live/Test, and endpoint details. It also flags fiscal guardrails, giving the agent full awareness of side effects and constraints.

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 detailed, but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by exclusions, idempotency, endpoint, and guardrails. While it is longer than the average tool description, the density of actionable information justifies the length, and it is well-structured with clear separators.

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 tool with multiple error codes, timing rules, and idempotency complexities, the description covers all essential aspects: when deletion is allowed, error responses, invoice retention, the effect of Live/Test status, and the idempotency-key behavior. It even includes the endpoint and a pointer to exhaustive docs. No output schema exists, but the description mentions expected response codes (204, 400, 403, 409), which is sufficient for an agent to interpret results.

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 covers company_id at 100% with a rich description, including the exclusive-source-of-context behavior and 403 semantics. The tool description reinforces this with the same 'only source of context' note and adds the context that a missing or unreachable NIF yields 403. This adds value beyond the schema without repeating it unnecessarily.

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 opens with a specific verb ('removes') and resource ('company (NIF)') and explains the effect ('stops appearing and stops being billed'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools that target invoices, customers, or other entities, leaving no ambiguity about what resource is acted upon.

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 gives explicit conditions for when the tool can and cannot be used, listing three distinct 409/400 error scenarios and the idempotency-key requirement. It also explains the timing difference between Live and Test deactivations, and points to guardrails and docs for further guidance. This is comprehensive and prescriptive.

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