delete_taxtable

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds valuable specifics: the refusal behavior, the SQL-based reference check, that voided invoices still pin taxtables, and the required remediation. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by the most important behavior and prerequisite, then the argument definition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description supplies the needed failure condition, persistence nuance, and remediation step. No missing information that an agent would need to call it correctly is apparent.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. The Args section defines 'name' as 'Taxtable name,' which is sufficient for the single required parameter and adds a small amount of domain context beyond the schema's generic 'Name' title.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Delete a sales-tax table,' which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like create_taxtable, list_taxtables, and update_taxtable. The resource is unambiguous, and the parameter name reinforces the target.

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 states a clear precondition and failure mode: deletion is refused while any Entry row references the taxtable, and those entries must be removed or re-assigned first. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the when-to-use/when-not-to-use context is strong.

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