Supprimer une facture

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context about irreversibility and the potential for a confirmation prompt when the MCP client supports elicitation, going beyond the annotation flags. This extra behavioral detail justifies a score above the baseline.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the core action and then append a necessary warning. No extraneous text.

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 deletion operation with a single parameter and a full input schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation behavior. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, making the description complete.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no new parameter-specific information, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 states the specific action 'Supprime une facture' (deletes an invoice) and the system (BoondManager), clearly distinguishing this delete tool from sibling tools like get, update, or search.

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 by explicitly stating it deletes an invoice, and adds context about irreversibility and confirmation. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as boond_invoices_update or boond_invoices_search, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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