delete_taxtable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does well: it discloses the refusal behavior, explains that voided invoices still pin their taxtables because voided entry rows persist for audit-trail purposes, and explains the prerequisite ordering. This is substantial behavioral detail beyond simple 'deletes X'.

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: a clear one-line purpose, followed by refusal behavior, audit-trail nuance, and a prerequisite instruction. The Args section at the end is slightly redundant given the schema, but the whole is compact and front-loaded with the most important behavioral warnings.

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's complexity (refusal logic, audit-pinning nuance), the description is thorough. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming alternative tools or documenting error response formats, but the behavioral prerequisites are well covered.

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?

The schema has 1 parameter (name) at 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly documents the argument ('name: Taxtable name.'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of description. The parameter semantics are clear and correct.

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 (Delete) and resource (sales-tax table), with a specific, focused scope. It's distinct from siblings like update_taxtable, create_taxtable, list_taxtables, and get_taxtable, so there's no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context on when deletion will be refused (when entries reference the taxtable) and instructs the user to remove or re-assign referencing entries first. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the referral logic is well-explained for correct usage.

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