declarations_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the soft-delete nature and the cannot-delete-accepted constraint, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'soft-delete' means for the agent (e.g., whether the declaration becomes hidden, restored via another endpoint, or affects downstream operations like lists/syncs).

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 tight sentences with zero filler. Every word earns its place: the action verb, resource, soft-delete nature, and the key constraint.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 2 params, the description is reasonably covering the basics. However, for a deletion operation it could explain what happens after soft-delete (recoverability, visibility, impact on related declarations like recalculate/sync), which would materially improve agent behavior in a system with many declaration lifecycle 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 parameters (id and companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Soft-delete a tax declaration') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like declarations_recalculate, declarations_submit, declarations_validate by being the delete operation, and specifies the soft-delete semantic.

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 notes 'Cannot delete accepted declarations,' which gives a meaningful constraint on when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., there is no 'revert' or 'restore' pathway mentioned, and no guidance on whether soft-deleted declarations appear in lists or can be recovered).

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