Delete Instances Payables By Id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds zero behavior context beyond that — no mention of whether the delete is soft or permanent, what happens to related records, whether funds/balance implications exist, or what errors arise from a non-existent or non-deletable payable. For a destructive financial mutation it should say more.

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 words with no waste in the literal sense, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence does not earn the space it takes by conveying anything actionable beyond the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate the return shape or post-delete state, and it says nothing. For a destructive, open-world mutation with two undocumented parameters, the definition is far too thin to call safely.

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 description coverage is 0% — neither `id` nor `instance_id` has a description (only length constraints and examples like `pb_...` / `in_...`). The description does nothing to explain that `id` is the payable identifier or that `instance_id` scopes the tenant, which is exactly the gap it needed to fill.

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?

"Delete Payable" names a verb and a resource, so the basic action is identifiable, and the sibling list contains GetV1InstancesPayablesById as its read counterpart. But it is a two-word restatement of the title with no scope detail (what a payable is, what deleting one means in this API), so it barely clears the minimum-viable bar.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling read/update payables endpoints, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the payable must be in a certain state). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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