cash_register_movements_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces permanence ('Permanently delete') and adds the meaningful constraint that only manual movements qualify. It does not mention effects on the cash register balance or error behavior for non-manual movements, keeping it below 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the exclusion following immediately. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what is needed. Minor gaps remain: permission requirements and side effects on register balance are unstated, and the excluded cases don't point to concrete tools.

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 uuid and the companyId override are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail about either parameter, which meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 (delete) and resource (manual cash movement) with a scope qualifier ('manual') that separates it from receipts_delete and payments_delete. It doesn't name those sibling tools, only 'their respective resources', so routing is left slightly implicit.

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?

Explicitly gives a when-not condition: receipts and invoice payments cannot be deleted here. However it never names the actual alternatives (receipts_delete, payments_delete), leaving the agent to infer which sibling to call.

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