delete_invoice_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says the action is destructive, but it does not mention reversibility, side effects on invoice totals, permissions, or error conditions. For a delete operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is structured with the verb and object first.

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 simple delete operation with two fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the scope (draft invoice) and the parameters are self-explanatory. However, it does not mention return values or error handling, which could be useful but are not critical for a basic delete tool.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (line_id and invoice_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Supprimer une ligne d'une facture brouillon' clearly states a specific action (delete), a resource (invoice line), and a context (draft invoice). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_invoice_line and update_invoice_line.

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 the tool is for removing lines from draft invoices but does not explicitly explain when to use it over alternatives like update_invoice_line. The draft-invoice constraint is stated, but there is no explicit when-not or comparison to sibling tools.

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