Delete a cash voucher by providing its record ID and accounting year. Removes the specified document from the Money S3 system to keep financial records accurate.
Delete a cash voucher by ID and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Cash voucher record ID | |
| year | Yes | Accounting year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', which indicates mutation but provides no information about irreversibility, authorization, side effects, or failure behavior. A destructive tool with zero annotation coverage should mention consequential aspects.
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 single sentence is minimal, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the delete semantics (hard/soft), consequences, or handling of missing records, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's 'by ID and year' adds a hint that the two fields jointly identify the record, but overall it contributes little 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 specific action ('Delete') applied to a specific resource ('a cash voucher') with the identifying keys (ID and year). It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools (e.g., m3_delete_bank_document, m3_delete_stock_document) at a glance.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. The description only restates the function, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate conditions from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.