External Invoices Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth scope requirement and marking the endpoint as an unstable API. It stops short of saying what happens to the order's invoice record after deletion (hard vs soft delete, downstream effects).

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?

Four compact lines with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The HTTP/scope/version lines each carry distinct operational information, though the block is more spec-sheet than prose and could integrate the scope caveat more naturally.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the definition supplies everything needed to call it: target, path, required scope, and a stability warning. No output schema exists, so nothing is owed about return values.

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 100% — both order_id and key are fully documented in the schema, including the 44-digit fiscal key format. The description only restates parameter placement via the HTTP path template, adding no semantics beyond structured data; 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+resource (delete an external invoice) and embeds the endpoint path, which makes the target unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with sibling operations like tiendanube_external_invoices_update or _get, so sibling differentiation rests on the name alone.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite (required scope: write_orders) and flags the API as unstable, which implies caution. However, it never says when to use this versus the other external-invoice tools, nor any condition that should give an agent pause before deleting.

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