delivery_notes_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Permanently delete' and 'Only draft delivery notes can be deleted' disclose irreversibility and the draft-only constraint, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't disclose permission/authorization requirements or behavior on failure (e.g., what happens if attempting to delete a non-draft note) beyond the stated constraint.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every element earns its place—the delete action, the draft-only constraint, and the alternative tool reference.

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 tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. The draft-only constraint and audit trail guidance are important operational details. It could benefit from noting prerequisites (e.g., that the note must be in draft status) but the constraint is already stated. Adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both parameters (uuid, companyId) having descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool permanently deletes a delivery note, with specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly contrasting with 'cancel' for issued notes, which is a meaningful sibling differentiation since delivery_notes_cancel exists alongside delivery_notes_delete.

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 explicitly states when this tool IS appropriate (draft delivery notes only) and when it is NOT ('Use cancel for issued delivery notes to preserve audit trail'). This provides clear exclusions and directs to the alternative tool by name, exactly what the rubric rewards.

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