beel_delete_logo_by_id

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying exactly what changes (future invoices lose logo) and what remains unchanged (already issued documents). It also discloses idempotency (204 on absent logo). Annotations only indicate destructiveHint; the description adds concrete behavioral detail without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences plus the endpoint line deliver all necessary information with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotency note is efficiently appended.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: effect on invoices, idempotency, and the 204 status. The schema parameter details handle authorization and error cases. Nothing critical is missing for correct usage.

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 provides a thorough description of `company_id` (ownership derivation, 403 behavior, privacy). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint reference, so 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 clearly states the action ('removes the logo') and the target ('of a company (NIF)'), with a specific endpoint. It distinguishes this from the many other delete tools by focusing on the logo-specific operation, and adds behavioral context about invoice effects.

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?

Provides clear context on the operation's effects (future invoices without logo, past unchanged) and idempotent behavior (204 on absent logo). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state exclusions, but there is no obvious sibling for logo deletion, so the guidance is adequate.

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