brc_delete_cash_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the two-step confirmation process and mentions the payload preview, but lacks details on the preview structure, error cases, or whether the deletion is reversible. The destructive nature is clear, but more context would be helpful.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds essential information without waste.

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 (delete with confirmation protocol) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core workflow and parameter usage adequately. It does not mention return values or error handling, but provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 75%, and the description adds value by explaining the confirmWrite parameter's role in the confirmation workflow. However, it does not add new meaning for the id or companyName parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('Deletes a BRC cash payment by id'), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like brc_delete_cash_receipt by targeting 'cash payment' specifically.

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 explicit steps: first call without confirmWrite returns confirmation_required, then retry with confirmWrite true only after user confirmation. It warns that passing preflight is not confirmation. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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