myob_invoice_prepare_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a preparation step, not a direct deletion, and that approval is critical, which suggests a workflow and potential consequences. However, it does not explain what 'prepare' entails, what the output contains, or what happens after approval (e.g., requiring commit), leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentences with no fluff. Every word adds meaning: 'Prepare', 'deletion/void-style removal', 'sales invoice', 'where MYOB permits it', and 'Critical approval required' are all essential. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is too minimal for the tool's complexity. It doesn't mention the two-step prepare/commit pattern (evident from sibling tools), the significance of 'layout' or 'business_id', or any prerequisites like authentication or authorization. The agent would lack enough context to correctly invoke and integrate this tool into a workflow.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (uid, layout, business_id). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds zero value for understanding their roles, formats, or defaults. This is a minimal score because the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Prepare deletion/void-style removal') on a specific resource ('a sales invoice'), and distinguishes this preparation step from actual deletion by noting it is where MYOB permits it. It also clearly differentiates from sibling tools like prepare_create/prepare_update by focusing on removal.

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 invoices that MYOB allows to be deleted or voided, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., raw mutations or update). The warning 'Critical approval required' gives a caveat but no explicit context about the two-step prepare/commit flow or when not to use it.

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