beel_delete_invoice_schedule

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

The description elaborates on the idempotentHint annotation by explaining that an unscheduled invoice still returns 204, and specifies the result ('returning it to a plain draft'). It also warns about fiscal consequences and references dedicated guardrail resources, adding significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by idempotency and the contrast with PUT, an endpoint reference, and a clearly marked warning section. The warnings and doc pointer are valuable for a fiscally sensitive operation, though they add length. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description addresses the key decision points: idempotency, feature requirements, and fiscal dangers, and points to the docs for exhaustive rules. It does not detail all possible error responses (e.g., invoice not found), but given the idempotent nature and the guardrail references, the coverage is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 descriptions for both parameters are comprehensive, covering 100% of the parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., company_id semantics and 403 behavior). The description itself adds no extra parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: 'Removes the scheduling of an invoice, returning it to a plain draft.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling PUT operation ('Unlike the PUT, it does not require the scheduled_invoices feature') and from deletion, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It contrasts directly with the PUT (beel_set_invoice_schedule) and explains a key condition (no feature requirement). It also references fiscal guardrails and directs to beel_docs_search for exhaustive rules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative actions (e.g., when to use delete_invoice or void_invoice) or provide a 'when not to use' statement beyond the PUT comparison.

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