delete_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive side-effect (automatically removes associated line items) and the posting constraint. However, it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/reversible, requires any authorization, or guarantees cascading behavior beyond line items. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is decent but not comprehensive.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by the deletion side-effect, then the posted-bill exclusion. The Args section is compact and directly maps to parameters. No filler, no redundant restating of schema fields.

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?

Despite having no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential operational context: what gets deleted (bill and associated line items), when it's allowed (unposted), what to do for posted bills, and full parameter semantics. An output schema exists which presumably documents the return, so it needn't describe that. This is well-complete for a destructive tool.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining both parameters, including the relationship between them (id is preferred, bill_id is a legacy alias), the format expectation ('000001' or 'BILL-2026-001'), and the exclusivity rule (pass exactly one). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema which shows only nullable string fields.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Delete an unposted vendor bill') and clarifies scope precisely — only unposted bills qualify. It also distinguishes from related actions by noting posted bills must be voided or issued a credit note instead, which differentiates this from sibling tools like delete_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?

Explicitly states when this tool applies (unposted bills only) and what to do when it doesn't (void or issue credit note for posted bills). The parameter guidance is also strong, explaining that id is the preferred named parameter matching sibling conventions and bill_id is a back-compat alias requiring exactly one to be passed. This gives clear exclusions and alternatives.

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