delete_voucher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adds the valuable clarification that the operation is non-destructive on the file itself (only removes the link), which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, response format, or whether the operation is reversible — gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence with one parenthetical clarification. The critical semantic distinction (detach, not delete) is front-loaded, and there is minimal waste, though the parenthetical does add some length.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and the key non-deletion distinction well. Nothing critical is missing for correctly invoking the tool.

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 both parameters (journal_id, voucher_file_id) carry their own schema descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific operation — detaching (添付解除) a voucher file from a journal entry in Money Forward Cloud Accounting — with a clear verb and resource. The parenthetical explicitly states it removes the association rather than deleting the file, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_journal and resolves the ambiguity inherent in the name 'delete_voucher'.

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 parenthetical clarifies the semantics ('not file deletion but link removal'), which implies this is not the tool for actually deleting files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not conditions; the routing away from delete_journal is implied rather than stated.

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