descartar_borradorDiscard a draft invoice that will not be issued, with no impact on ARCA records. Removes the draft from the system.
Borra un borrador que no se va a emitir. No afecta nada en ARCA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| borrador_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the contextual detail 'No afecta nada en ARCA' (does not affect anything in ARCA), which clarifies that this operation has no impact on the production system. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond what structured fields convey.
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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and adding a relevant side effect in the second. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, the condition for use, and the non-effect on ARCA. It does not describe return values or error handling, but given the simplicity and existing annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description is adequately complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 input schema has only 'borrador_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the tool's purpose makes it clear that it is the identifier of the draft to delete. The name itself is descriptive, and the context in the description supports inference, though it lacks details such as expected format or constraints.
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: 'Borra un borrador que no se va a emitir' (deletes a draft that won't be emitted). It specifies the verb (borra) and resource (borrador), and the phrase 'que no se va a emitir' distinguishes it from emission-related tools. No other sibling performs deletion of drafts, so it is uniquely identifiable.
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 implies usage for drafts that won't be emitted ('que no se va a emitir'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools like 'listar_borradores' or 'cancelar_emision', so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.