einvoice_config_delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by specifying what is removed (provider settings), the side effect (submissions disabled for that provider), and that existing submissions are untouched. It does not say whether the deletion is reversible or requires confirmation.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the scope caveat. No filler.

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 destructive config mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and what is preserved, which is the key agent decision input. Missing only irreversibility/confirmation and recovery notes, which are modest gaps given the destructive annotation.

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%, including the provider enum and the companyId default behavior, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only implies the company scoping and adds no format or constraint details.

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 (delete e-invoice provider configuration for a company) and scopes it to provider settings. It is clearly distinct from einvoice_config_list/save/test, though it never names which sibling is the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'delete ... configuration', but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance, e.g. whether to use einvoice_config_save to merely disable a provider instead of removing it.

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