Delete requisition

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it deletes requisition items/logs and only works when no linked payment vouchers, plus the confirm/dryRun workflow. This adds useful information beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Highly efficient and front-loaded with the key action and conditions.

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?

The description explains the core workflow and condition, but given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, it lacks details on required parameters (requisitionId, actorId) and behavior on errors or edge cases. Adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of confirm and dryRun parameters but does not mention requisitionId, actorId, or reason. Only 2 of 5 parameters are covered, leaving significant gaps.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'requisition', specifies that it also deletes items and logs, and adds a condition (no linked payment vouchers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like limu_delete_payment_voucher.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and the safe procedure: 'Requires confirm=true for real deletes; use dryRun=true first.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.