Müşteri Fatura Bağlantısını Sil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive action (deletion) and mentions a constant channelId value (though not in schema), but does not elaborate on irreversibility, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is adequately stated for a simple delete operation.

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 concise (2 sentences plus a note) with no redundant information. It front-loads the action with a caution emoji, and every sentence provides necessary guidance without excess.

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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage scenario, parameter sourcing, and post-deletion step. The note about channelId is helpful, though slightly inconsistent with the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by mapping serviceSourceId to shipmentPackageId and indicating how to retrieve customerId from another tool's response. The mention of channelId (constant 1) provides extra context, though it is not a parameter in the schema.

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 tool deletes an incorrectly sent invoice link, using a specific verb ('siler') and resource ('fatura bağlantısı'). It distinguishes from sibling 'trendyol_send_invoice_link' by implying a corrective workflow where deletion precedes resending.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool (for incorrectly sent invoice links) and directs to the sibling tool for the next step. It also provides guidance on obtaining parameter values from another tool's response, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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