discard_invoice_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Discard' implies mutation but does not specify if the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., cascade effects on related data). This omission leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 extremely concise (a single phrase), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, under-specification reduces its usefulness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide essential context such as action consequences, prerequisites, or return values. The tool is simple (one param), but the description is still insufficient.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the role of 'invoice_id' beyond its existence in the schema. No additional meaning is provided.

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 'discard' and the resource 'invoice draft', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'discard_quote_draft' or 'create_invoice_draft', but the resource differentiation is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_invoice_draft' or 'send_invoice'. The description offers no context for appropriate usage.

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