delete_master

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses two confirmed behavioral caveats: the race condition when deleting a master and its voucher in the same batch, and the permanent 'Cannot be deleted!' scenario that requires a Company Data rewrite in Tally. These are rich, operationally critical details that annotations alone do not capture.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then followed by a high-value operational warning. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition, and the additional clauses all contribute useful context.

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 destructive, multi-type deletion tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential use case: general usage, sequencing with vouchers, known race condition, a specific permanent error, and the Tally-side fix. It provides enough operational context to use the tool safely and to understand what can go wrong.

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 describes both parameters in detail, including the collection of XML tag names and the exact names array; schema coverage is 100%. The description restates examples of master types but adds no new information about parameter formats, constraints, or behavior beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Delete one or more masters (ledger, group, stock item, voucher type, unit, godown, cost centre, etc.) by name.' It names both the verb and the resource scope, and it distinguishes this generic deletion tool from sibling tools like delete_stock_item and delete_voucher which are type-specific.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: delete a voucher first and confirm success before deleting the related master, and avoid parallel batch execution to prevent a race. It also explicitly states that a certain permanent deletion failure should be handled with a Tally rewrite, not retry or sequencing. However, it does not explicitly say 'use delete_stock_item instead for stock items' or otherwise contrast with the sibling delete tools.

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