brc_delete_cash_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of the tool and the required confirmation workflow, including the need for user confirmation beyond initial intent. This is valuable beyond just saying 'deletes'.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient in conveying the key workflow without extraneous text. However, it could be slightly better structured (e.g., separating steps) for clarity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple delete tool with confirmation, covering the workflow and user interaction. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., id not found) or what the return values are, which might be needed since no output schema exists.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for confirmWrite by explaining the confirmation protocol, but confirmDelete has no description and is not addressed. The description could better explain how confirmDelete fits.

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 tool deletes a BRC cash receipt by ID, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools like brc_delete_cash_payment, although the resource name differentiates.

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 guidance on the two-step confirmation process: first call without confirmWrite to get a payload preview, show a draft to the user, then retry with confirmWrite=true only after explicit confirmation. It also warns that 'Passing preflight is not confirmation,' covering when-not-to-use.

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