delete_voucher

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion removes the voucher 'with no trace,' that it has no undo, and that it refuses when another voucher type shares the same number due to Tally's lookup ignoring voucher type. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially affect invocation and expected outcomes.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and irreversibility warning, then explains the matching criteria and a critical collision caveat. Every sentence earns its place and no important context is buried.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides everything needed to use the tool correctly: prerequisites (verify existence), matching rules, irreversibility, and the specific failure mode around number collisions. For a destructive operation with Tally quirks, this is exceptionally complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the three parameters form a composite match key, must be unique, and must exactly match an existing voucher—information that helps the agent correctly construct the parameters beyond simple type definitions.

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 verb ('permanently delete') and resource ('existing voucher from TallyPrime'), and explicitly distinguishes it from cancelling, which is a different outcome. It clearly separates this tool from read-only sibling tools and other delete tools like delete_master or delete_stock_item.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when permanent deletion with no trace is intended), and contrasts it with the alternative of cancelling. It also instructs the agent to first confirm the voucher exists using get_ledger_vouchers or get_vouchers, and warns that the tool refuses on number collisions—so the agent knows to resolve the collision beforehand.

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