Delete invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive detail: cascading deletion of invoice items, irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and the payment-based guard. That is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence, then adds the irreversibility warning and the fallback path. Four short sentences, none wasted.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, preconditions, and the alternative route. An agent has everything needed to call it safely or avoid it.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states it comes from list_invoices. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (deletes an invoice) plus a distinguishing precondition (has no payments, for good). It is clearly separable from sibling deleters like delete_change_order and delete_estimate by naming the resource.

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?

Explicitly names the case where the tool refuses (invoice with payments recorded) and routes the agent to a concrete alternative: update_invoice with status write_off or denied. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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