invoices_bulk_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add texture — and it does: 'This action is irreversible' plus the draft-only gate and the partial-success shape ('count of deleted invoices and any per-item errors'). That partial-failure behavior is meaningful for a batch call and is not derivable from the annotations. It does not cover whether deleted drafts can be restored via invoices_restore.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the eligibility gate, the irreversibility warning, and the return shape. No filler or restated title.

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 output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the return values (deleted count plus per-item errors). Combined with the destructiveness and eligibility constraints, an agent has what it needs to call it safely; only recovery/undo options for accidentally deleted drafts are unaddressed.

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% and the ids property already documents the 1–100 UUID array and the draft eligibility, plus companyId's active-company fallback. The description adds nothing beyond that on parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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, resource and scope: 'Delete multiple draft invoices in batch', which cleanly separates it from the single-item invoices_delete and from non-destructive siblings like invoices_bulk_cancel or invoices_bulk_mark_paid. The eligibility restriction (draft only) further pins the operation down.

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 a hard precondition — 'Only invoices with status "draft" can be deleted' — which tells the agent exactly when this tool will succeed and when it must reach for a different operation. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (single delete, cancel/storno) for issued invoices, so routing still needs a little inference.

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