Delete an invoice by ID and year. Fails if dependent records such as stock movements exist, preserving data integrity.
Delete an invoice by ID and year. Fails if the invoice has dependent records (e.g. stock movements).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Invoice record ID | |
| type | Yes | Invoice type | |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a critical behavior: the deletion fails if dependent records like stock movements exist. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether there are any side effects, or what happens on success.
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 brief, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only the essential additional context about dependent records. Every sentence contributes useful information without clutter.
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 covers the core operation and the main failure condition, but since there is no output schema or annotations, an agent is left without information about success responses, permanence, or any further behavioral implications. This is adequate but not fully complete for a destructive tool.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating the ID and year as identifying criteria and does not explain the role of the 'type' parameter, which is also required.
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 action ('Delete an invoice'), the target resource, and the identifying fields (ID and year). It is distinct from sibling delete tools that target liabilities, receivables, or documents, so an agent can tell this tool apart from other m3_delete_* tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implies deletion of an invoice but does not say when an agent should prefer this over related create/update/list operations or other delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.