delete_credit_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (only unposted notes can be deleted, posted ones rejected) and the validation behavior. However, it doesn't mention what happens on failure for non-credit-note targets, whether deletion is irreversible, or any permission/auth requirements.

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 well-structured with a concise lead sentence followed by clear Args section. It front-loads the key info (delete unposted credit note) and uses formatting effectively (backticks, bullet-style Args). Slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 3 params, no required fields, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential exclusions (posted cannot be deleted), the validation behavior, and all parameter semantics. The exclusion of same-tool sibling (delete_invoice) isn't needed since the deletion workflow is well specified. Missing return-value explanation is acceptable since an 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter well: id as the preferred name (matching sibling naming conventions), credit_note_id as a legacy alias, and owner_type as a customer/vendor disambiguator. It also clarifies 'pass exactly one of id or credit_note_id'. This provides strong semantic value beyond the bare schema 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Delete an unposted credit note') and clearly distinguishes the tool's scope: it validates the target is a credit note before deletion. It differentiates from sibling tools like post_invoice/unpost_invoice by explicitly referencing the unpost-then-delete workflow.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: posted credit notes cannot be deleted and must be unposted first via unpost_invoice. This gives clear when-to-use and precondition context, effectively preventing misuse. The call to unpost_invoice is a named alternative.

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