Permanently deletes a payroll record in Holded by salary record ID; use only when removal is required, as it cannot be undone and affects accounting data.
DESTRUCTIVE: permanently deletes a payroll record in Holded (API v2). This cannot be undone and affects accounting data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salaryRecordId | Yes | Salary record ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing permanence, irreversibility, and impact on accounting data. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements, related-record side effects, or the return value, which would push it to a 5.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'DESTRUCTIVE' tag, no wasted words, and essential warnings immediately visible.
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 simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical safety profile (destructive, irreversible, affects accounting). It could mention return behavior or auth requirements, but is nearly complete.
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 100% and the single parameter (salaryRecordId) is documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the ID's format or source, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (permanently deletes) and a specific resource (payroll record), with additional context (Holded API v2). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_employee_time or update_salary_record.
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 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning and 'cannot be undone' imply caution, suggesting the tool should be used only for permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus update_salary_record or other siblings, nor does it name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.