delete_invoice

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: deletion is permanent and subject to legal restrictions. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core fact (permanent deletion) is front-loaded, and the regulatory caution is placed immediately after as essential usage context.

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 annotations already covering the read/write and destructive profile, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect. No missing return-value or schema details are needed for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Invoice id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action (delete) on a specific resource (a Quipu invoice) and adds the critical qualifier 'permanently.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_contact and delete_additional_income.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool: Spanish regulations generally require a credit note for numbered invoices, and deletion should be preferred only for drafts. This directly tells the agent when to favor an alternative approach.

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