mfc_ca_deleteVouchers

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden and does disclose an important side effect ('the voucher itself remains isolated') and a requirement ('user approval required'). However, it does not explain the effect on the journal, reversibility, return value, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact sentence followed by a tight parenthetical. Every clause earns its place: action, side effect, availability caveat, and authorization requirement. No redundant wording 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?

Given only two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key side effect. However, it does not mention what the caller receives on success, whether the operation is reversible, or how the 'user approval' requirement manifests in practice, which leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It refers to '仕訳' (journal) and '証憑' (voucher), which map to journal_id and voucher_file_id, adding conceptual meaning beyond the bare schema. Still, it does not explicitly define each parameter's format or constraints, leaving some inference required.

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 states a specific action ('unlink link between journal and voucher') and a specific resource, distinguishing it from similar deletion tools like mfc_ca_deleteJournals. It also clarifies that the voucher itself remains, preventing the misleading name 'deleteVouchers' from causing a wrong mental model.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name a sibling or exclusion condition. The parenthetical provides context about authorization and official MCP availability, but no guidance about selecting this tool over deleteJournals or other related tools.

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