einvoice_config_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: it removes provider settings AND disables submissions for that provider, AND notes existing submissions are unaffected. This is useful non-obvious side-effect disclosure. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility, whether this affects other companies sharing the provider, or any auth/permission requirements, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 waste. Front-loads the purpose in sentence one, then adds behavioral context in sentences two and three. Efficient and structured appropriately.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (2 params, both documented) and no output schema, so the description is reasonably complete for a straightforward delete operation. The side effects are disclosed. However, it could benefit from noting whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, and explicit permission needs—gaps that matter for a destructive config operation.

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 (provider enum and companyId with default behavior). The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't elaborate on provider choices or edge cases for companyId. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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+resource: 'Delete an e-invoice provider configuration for a company.' It distinguishes the action from siblings like einvoice_config_save and einvoice_config_test by explicitly noting removal of settings and disabling submissions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the delete semantic is 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 implies deletion is for removing a provider setup, and states that existing submissions are not affected (a useful behavioral note). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. einvoice_config_save (i.e., no 'use save to modify, use this to remove' contrast), and doesn't mention prerequisites like whether the provider must be currently configured or the consequence of re-adding after delete.

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