beel_delete_recurring_invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: it permanently deletes the template and cancels pending scheduled generations, while clarifying that already-generated invoices remain unaffected. This goes beyond the annotations by describing specific side effects and scope. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint and then important guardrails. The guardrails section is somewhat lengthy but serves as a necessary warning for fiscal compliance. The structure is clear and logically ordered, though the guardrail references could be more concise.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential side effects (permanent deletion, cancellation of pending generations, non-impact on generated invoices) and provides a warning about fiscal rules. It lacks explicit guidance on how to obtain recurring_invoice_id or what the response will be, but those are minor gaps for this operation.

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 50%: company_id has a detailed description, but recurring_invoice_id has none. The description adds some meaning for company_id (e.g., 'of this company (NIF)') but does nothing for recurring_invoice_id. It does not compensate for the missing parameter description, though it partially leverages the existing schema description for the first parameter.

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: 'Permanently deletes a recurring invoice template of this company (NIF) and cancels any pending scheduled generations.' It also clarifies the scope ('Invoices already generated from it are not affected'), which distinguishes it from related delete tools like beel_delete_invoice. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly identifies the resource and the action.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to permanently remove a recurring invoice template) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not contrast with beel_set_recurring_invoice_status (which might deactivate rather than delete) or beel_skip_recurring_invoice. The warning about fiscal guardrails suggests prerequisites, but no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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