feegow_remove_invoice

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

The description mentions it is a write operation that alters data and requires a flag, and provides the HTTP method DELETE. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify consequences (e.g., cascading effects), authorization details, or error handling.

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 sentence plus metadata tags, efficiently conveying the core purpose. The tags add useful context, though they could be considered slightly redundant. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the core function and required input. However, it lacks information about the response format or success/failure indicators. No output schema is provided, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage with 'invoiceId' described as the identifier. The description essentially restates this ('código identificador'), adding no new semantic meaning. The generic 'query' parameter is noted but not elaborated.

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 removes an invoice by its identifier. It uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('fatura'), which distinguishes it from other invoice-related sibling tools like feegow_list_invoices or feegow_create_invoice.

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 includes tags '[Financeiro]' and '[ESCRITA — altera dados; requer FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true]' indicating it's a financial write operation requiring a specific environment variable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the flag.

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