Receipts: delete receipt by id_by_customer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds important context: it states the operation is destructive and requires user confirmation, clarifies that receipt deletes are restorable (unlike cost-location deletes), and describes the soft-delete nature ('mark as deleted'). It also mentions the behavior for cancelling postings, though that is tangential. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral insight.

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 longer than necessary and includes information about cost-location deletes and cancelling postings that is not directly relevant to this specific tool. The opening warning block repeats the destructive nature, and the text could be streamlined to focus on receipts_delete. However, it is front-loaded with the destructive warning and the core action is stated early.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, how to get the identifier, when to use it, and restorability. It also includes the important user-confirmation requirement. It doesn't mention error cases or permissions, but for a simple delete operation with no params, this is reasonably 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?

There are no parameters in the input schema (0 properties). The description explains how to obtain the id_by_customer, which is essential for the call, even though it is not a request body parameter (likely a path parameter). Since there are no params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds value by explaining how to get the required identifier.

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 action: 'Mark a receipt as deleted for a specified customer account by id_by_customer.' It identifies the specific resource (receipt) and the key identifier (id_by_customer). It also distinguishes from restore by mentioning recoverability, and notes it is for removing a mistakenly filed receipt, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage guidance: it says to use this to remove a receipt filed by mistake, mentions the prerequisite of obtaining id_by_customer via '/receipts/get method', and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. It also contrasts with receipts_restore for recovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other deletion tools like cost_locations_delete, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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