Delete vouchers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important blast-radius detail that it removes *all* matching vouchers, not one. It does not restate irreversibility (annotations handle that), which is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences, the deletion scope front-loaded, with the parameter mechanics follow-up. Every clause carries information; nothing repeats the title.

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 bulk-delete tool the essential mechanical facts (required filter, preview-gated confirm, dry_run) are split between description and schema, but behavior when the filter is omitted or matches broadly is left unstated. Adequate, with a real safety-relevant gap.

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%, but the description adds genuinely new information: `filter` is required by the underlying API despite the schema listing zero required parameters, and it is transmitted as a query parameter. It also clarifies that `body.filter` is a deprecated compatibility path, which usefully steers the agent to use the top-level parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('all vouchers matching `filter`'), with the scope qualifier 'all' that separates it from the singular unifi_net_delete_voucher sibling. It does not name that singular sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by wording rather than stated.

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 makes the filter-based bulk nature evident, which implicitly routes an agent away from the single-voucher tool, but never says when to use this versus unifi_net_delete_voucher or what to do if the filter would match nothing/unexpectedly much. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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