beel_delete_series

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true), the description discloses that it's a soft-delete, that the code is not released, that it can return 409 SERIES_CODE_DUPLICATED on recreation, and that it can leave a type with no series. It also points to fiscal guardrails and the endpoint. This enriches the annotation info without contradicting it.

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 logically structured: core action, conditions, endpoint, fiscal guardrails, and a pointer to exhaustive docs. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids redundancy. It is a bit long but each sentence earns its place, and the closing pointer keeps it from over-expanding.

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?

Given the complexity (delete with preconditions, failure modes, and fiscal implications), the description covers the essential behavior, edge cases, and points to full documentation. It lacks an explicit return-value specification, but for a delete operation this is often unnecessary. It's sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%: both company_id and series_id have full descriptions. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at baseline. No additional semantics are offered.

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 'Soft-deletes an invoice series', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it deactivates first if active. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beel_patch_series (modify) or beel_deactivate_by_id (deactivate) by focusing on deletion. It also explains the soft-delete consequence (code stays taken), further clarifying the operation's scope.

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 concrete conditions for when deletion is allowed: a default series cannot be deleted while another active series of the same type exists, and if it's the only series, deletion leaves the type without a default. It also gives consequences (e.g., SERIES_DEFAULT_NOT_FOUND on subsequent issues). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', though the conditions imply when not to use it.

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