delete_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that deletion is likely irreversible, might have cascading effects (e.g., on linked transactions), or requires specific permissions. This gap is significant for a destructive operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no fluff, and it efficiently conveys the core action, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive operation. It does not mention what happens on success (e.g., return value or confirmation), nor any side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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%, and the description merely restates the id_by_customer parameter without adding new meaning. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and since the description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, this score is appropriate.

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 verb (deletes) and the resource (Beleg/receipt) and the identifier (id_by_customer), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_receipt or create_receipt. It is specific and unambiguous about the operation's core action.

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 implies use for deletion but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or side effects. Since it's a straightforward delete, the intended usage is somewhat obvious, but no exclusions or contextual cues are given, making it only minimally adequate.

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