Eliminar pago

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that write access must be enabled — but says nothing about whether the deletion is permanent, whether the invoice balance/total is recalculated, or what a failure looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and the prerequisite front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The terseness is efficient rather than padded, though it leaves no room for the side-effect details an agent would want.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and only half the parameters documented, the definition is thin: it does not state irreversibility, the effect on invoice totals, or any recovery path. Annotations cover the destructive flag, but the description should carry more of the consequence story.

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 coverage is 50% and the description names both concepts, making clear a payment is removed from a specific invoice, which reinforces the required invoiceId/paymentId pairing. It still adds no detail on the undocumented invoiceId or on how to obtain these IDs beyond the schema's hint pointing at cs_list_payments, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 in Spanish: 'Elimina un pago registrado por error en una factura', which unambiguously identifies deletion of a payment tied to an invoice. It is clearly distinct from the sibling write tool cs_add_payment and the read tool cs_list_payments, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'registrado por error' implies the intended scenario (only payments recorded in error should be removed) and 'Requiere escritura activada' gives a precondition, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, no alternative (e.g. correcting vs. deleting via cs_add_payment), and no note that the action is irreversible, so the guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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