delete_invoicing_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. It omits everything else an agent needs — whether linked cashflow records cascade, error behavior for a missing/invalid forecastId, and what (if anything) is returned.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the destructive warning — the highest-value information for an agent deciding whether to call it. Zero padding.

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?

Small surface area (one required param, no output schema, no nesting) means little needs explaining, and the irreversibility warning is the crucial piece. Slightly short of complete because it says nothing about failure modes or outcome, which matter for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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?

Only one parameter (forecastId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully; this is the baseline case. The description adds no format hints (e.g. ID shape) or guidance on obtaining the ID from list_invoicing_forecasts, so it does not exceed the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'permanently deletes an invoicing forecast' plus the domain 'Holded cashflow (API v2)'. An agent can distinguish it from get_invoicing_forecast / update_invoicing_forecast / list_invoicing_forecasts by name alone, though the description never explicitly routes to those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the delete verb plus the 'DESTRUCTIVE' prefix signal caution, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative (e.g. update_invoicing_forecast to modify rather than remove), and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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