Permanently deletes draft delivery notes. Use cancel for issued delivery notes to preserve the audit trail.
Permanently delete a delivery note. Only draft delivery notes can be deleted. Use cancel for issued delivery notes to preserve audit trail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the delivery note to delete | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is the eligibility precondition and the audit-trail consequence, both of which go beyond the schema. Minor gap: it says 'Permanently' while a delivery_notes_restore sibling exists, so the reversibility of the delete is not fully clarified.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler, and the most important constraint (draft-only) is front-loaded right after the action. The alternative routing is left to the end where it belongs.
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, the description supplies the critical precondition and the escape hatch to cancel. The only thing an agent might still wonder about is whether a deleted note is recoverable via delivery_notes_restore.
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 uuid and companyId documented in the schema itself, so the baseline applies. The description adds nothing about the uuid identifier or the companyId override, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.
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 ('Permanently delete a delivery note') and immediately scopes the operation to drafts. The naming of 'cancel' as the alternative makes it distinguishable from delivery_notes_cancel, delivery_notes_restore, and the other delivery_notes_* siblings without opening a schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not condition ('Only draft delivery notes can be deleted') and names the alternative for the excluded case ('Use cancel for issued delivery notes'), along with the rationale (audit trail). An agent has everything needed to choose between delete and cancel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.