Delete payment voucher

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds the valuable two-step dry-run/confirm process, going beyond the annotation to inform safe usage. It does not, however, detail other behaviors like irreversibility or cascading effects beyond items/proof rows.

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 sentences that front-load the core action and then provide essential usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to document required parameters (voucherId, actorId) and the optional reason field. The workflow is explained, but parameter meanings are missing, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dryRun and confirm but omits voucherId, actorId, and reason. Users must infer or assume their purposes from context, which is insufficient.

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 tool deletes a submitted or declined payment voucher and its associated items/proof rows. This verb+resource+scope specification effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that review or mark paid.

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 advises using dryRun=true first and confirm=true for actual deletion, providing a clear usage workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among siblings.

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