Deletes a stock card from Money S3 accounting by ID, removing an article from inventory records. Use when a stock card is obsolete or needs to be discarded.
Delete a stock card (article) by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stock card record ID |
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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' conveys the core action, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what side effects occur on related data, or whether special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and the resource, making it immediately scannable.
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 tool with one required parameter and complete schema coverage, the call inputs are sufficiently clear. However, the total absence of usage guidance and behavioral side-effect information, especially for a destructive action with no annotations, leaves the agent under-informed about important operational context.
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?
The only parameter, id, is already fully documented in the schema as 'Stock card record ID' with an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly names the exact action ('Delete'), the specific resource ('stock card'), and even clarifies the domain term ('article'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling delete tools like m3_delete_stock_document, since the object is explicitly identified.
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 such as m3_delete_stock_document or when deletion is appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool's name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.