Delete an internal document from Money S3 by providing its record ID and accounting year.
Delete an internal document by ID and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Internal document 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core destructive fact ('Delete'), but it discloses nothing about permanence, reversibility, cascading effects on linked accounting records, permission requirements, or behavior on failure. For a mutation in an accounting system, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word ('Delete', 'internal document', 'by ID and year') earns its place, and the action is stated first. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple two-parameter delete operation, the description plus schema covers the invocation fully (what, which resource, which keys). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what happens on success or error, and whether deletion can be blocked by document state. Adequate for basic use, but a safe full picture is missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (record ID, accounting year). The description adds only marginal meaning by grouping them as a composite identifier ('by ID and year'), but provides no additional format, constraints, or contextual detail 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 verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('internal document'), and the identifying scope ('by ID and year'). This distinguishes it from the large family of delete siblings (delete_invoice, delete_liability, delete_bank_document) and names the exact key an agent must supply.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the related m3_internal_documents / m3_create_internal_document tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., document must not be posted) or exclusions (when not to delete). Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.