Soft-delete an uploaded trial balance by ID to remove the record and its parsed account rows.
Delete an uploaded trial balance by ID. This soft-deletes the balance and its parsed account rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Trial balance UUID to delete | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing that this is a SOFT delete and that the parsed account rows are deleted alongside the balance — cascade and recoverability context an agent cannot get from the annotations.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the cascade consequence immediately after it.
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 two-parameter delete with no output schema and fully-covered annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is removed, that the removal is soft, and that dependent rows go with it. Nothing material is left unstated.
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%, so both the id and companyId semantics (including the env-var override) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes "by ID" and adds no format, scope or edge-case detail beyond that baseline.
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 verb and resource ("Delete an uploaded trial balance by ID") and scopes it to uploaded balances, which separates it from balance_list, balance_rows, balance_reprocess and balance_analysis by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named (e.g., reprocess vs. delete-and-reupload). The phrase "uploaded trial balance" only weakly implies the precondition that the balance must already exist from an upload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.