Delete Source Document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful scoping fact — only the attached document goes, not the invoice/journal/transaction — but says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or behavior when no document is attached.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and states the scope immediately, with no filler or hedging. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is workable but thin. It omits what the caller should expect on success/failure and any preconditions, which matters more here because there is no output schema or usage guidance to fall back on.

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% and both parameters (id, entity_type) are documented in the schema, including the four-value enum. The description's enumeration of entity types restates rather than extends the schema, 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?

Specific verb ("Delete") plus a precisely scoped resource ("the source document attached to a purchase invoice, sale invoice, journal, or bank transaction"). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings that delete the parent records themselves (delete_sale_invoice, delete_transaction) and from attach_document/get_document, without needing to name them.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The description never says to reach for this tool rather than get_document, find_missing_documents, or the parent-record delete tools, and it states no prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must exist).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.