Delete a stocktaking document by its record ID to remove incorrect or outdated inventory records from the Money S3 accounting system.
Delete a stocktaking document by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Inventory document record ID |
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 indicates a destructive operation but does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether associated lines are affected, or what permissions are required.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, and selection method efficiently.
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 one-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage, the essential invocation path is present. However, the missing annotations leave gaps around permanence and side effects, and the 'stocktaking' phrasing creates potential confusion with adjacent stock-document tools.
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% and the 'id' parameter is already described as 'Inventory document record ID' with exclusiveMinimum 0. The description merely restates 'by ID' and adds no meaningful parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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') and a resource ('stocktaking document') with the selection key ('by ID'), so an agent can infer the operation. However, it uses 'stocktaking document' instead of the tool name's 'inventory document' and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling m3_delete_stock_document.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description also leaves the 'stocktaking' vs 'inventory' terminology unresolved, which matters because sibling tools include delete_stock_document and delete_stock_card.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.