cash_register_movements_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that deletion is 'permanent' (irreversible action) and scopes what types of movements are eligible. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the movement is already referenced elsewhere, or side effects like cascade behaviors. The permanence disclosure is valuable but the description could say more about consequences.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the action and its permanence; the second scopes what cannot be deleted. Every word earns its place and the critical exclusion is front-loaded right after the core statement.

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 delete-by-uuid tool with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers permanence (irreversibility), the valid target scope (manual movements only), and directs users elsewhere for receipts/invoice payments. A minor gap is the lack of error messaging or cascade behavior description, but these are less critical for a straightforward deletion endpoint with good schema documentation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (uuid as Movement UUID, companyId as Company UUID override). The description adds the 'manual cash movement' restriction on which uuids are valid, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the distinction between a manual movement uuid and receipt/invoice-payment uuids in practical terms. Baseline 3 with modest added value.

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 verb ('delete') and resource ('manual cash movement'). It distinguishes itself from related operations by explicitly noting that receipts and invoice payments cannot be deleted via this endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling deletion tools like cash_register_movements_update or the broader invoices_delete, though the 'manual cash movement' scope is reasonably clear.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Receipts and invoice payments cannot be deleted via this endpoint — use their respective resources'), indicating that manual cash movements are the only valid targets. This is stronger than implied usage. It could be improved by naming specific alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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