Remove a receivable from your accounting system by providing its record ID and the accounting year. Deletes the specific receivable entry to keep financial records accurate.
Delete a receivable by ID and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Receivable 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that this is a delete operation, a fact already evident from the tool name, and adds nothing about permanence, cascade effects on related records, behavior when the record does not exist, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant disclosure 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?
The description is a single seven-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word carries meaning, making it maximally efficient for an agent to parse.
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 tool with two flat integer parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely adequate for constructing a call. However, it is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the absence of notes on deletion consequences, error behavior, or return values leaves a clear gap. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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: id as 'Receivable record ID' and year as 'Accounting year' with a 2000–2100 range. The description adds only that the two jointly identify the receivable, which is marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('receivable'), and the identifying key ('ID and year'), which unambiguously tells an agent what the tool does. In a sibling list containing nine other delete_* tools for different resources, this clearly distinguishes it as the receivable-targeting one. The explicit dual-key detail sets the correct invocation expectation.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m3_create_receivable or m3_receivables, nor does it mention the nine sibling delete_* tools. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions (e.g., verifying the receivable exists before deleting). 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.