delete_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the deletion 'cannot be undone,' which is critical. However, it does not disclose other potential traits such as whether the invoice must be in draft status, cascading deletes of line items, or permission requirements, so coverage is partial.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place; there is no superfluous information.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description captures the core action and irreversibility. However, it lacks context about constraints (e.g., only draft invoices) or side effects (e.g., whether line items are also deleted), leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke the tool. Given no annotations or output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'id' described as 'The invoice UUID.' The description adds no additional semantic value for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles the meaning adequately.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('draft invoice'), with the qualifier 'draft' distinguishing this deletion tool from other invoice operations like update_invoice or delete_invoice_line_item. This fully specifies what the tool does.

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 usage for draft invoices, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for non-draft invoices (e.g., create_cancellation, update_invoice_status). No exclusions are given beyond the 'draft' scope, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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