delete_voucher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does well: it says the deletion is permanent, a backup occurs first, confirm must be true, and prior user approval is required. It does not cover failure behavior, permissions, or dry-run preview, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the destructive action and backup behavior, followed by identification and approval requirements. Every sentence contributes to safe invocation.

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 an annotation-free destructive tool, it covers the most critical context: permanence, backup, confirmation, and approval. It omits dry_run and does not fully explain all eight parameters, but the schema documents several of those details.

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 63%, and the description mainly repeats schema-provided semantics for master_id (preferred) and confirm: true. It does not clarify the roles of guid, voucher_type, voucher_number, or when to use each identifier, so it adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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 a precise verb and resource: permanently delete a voucher from Tally. It also discloses the irreversible nature and that a backup is taken first, which clearly distinguishes it from non-destructive sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions: show the user the voucher via get_voucher, get approval, and require confirm: true. It also recommends master_id for identification. It does not name when-not-to-use or alternative deletion workflows, but the context is clear.

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