siigo_delete_purchase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete a purchase' implies a destructive mutation but offers no details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that permanently removes data, leaving critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and free of unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context such as confirmation requirements, impact on related records, or response format, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Purchase ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 'Delete a purchase' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'purchase' in this context or how deletion works, though it does include the verb 'delete' and resource 'purchase' which provides minimal clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'siigo_delete_invoice' and 'siigo_delete_payment_receipt', the description fails to differentiate this deletion operation from others or specify prerequisites, making it misleadingly simplistic for a destructive action.

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