invoices_bulk_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the action is irreversible, returns a count of deleted invoices and per-item errors, and only allows draft status. This covers the key behavioral traits (destructive, conditions, return format) well. It could mention partial-success semantics more explicitly but the per-item errors mention implies it.

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 sentences, all informative, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler. Could perhaps structure the return-value sentence more clearly, but overall tight and efficient.

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 bulk-delete mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: eligibility condition (draft only), irreversibility, and return format (count + per-item errors). It effectively signals partial-failure handling. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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% — both ids and companyId have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the return-format context (count + per-item errors) and the draft eligibility, but these relate more to behavior than parameters. Schema already explains eligibility for ids and companyId override. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete multiple draft invoices in batch' — a specific verb (delete), specific resource (invoices), scope (multiple/draft), and batch mode. It distinguishes from siblings like invoices_delete (single) and invoices_bulk_cancel (cancel, not 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?

States the eligibility constraint ('Only invoices with status draft can be deleted') which provides clear context on when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like invoices_bulk_cancel, invoices_bulk_storno, or the single invoices_delete, nor does it say when NOT to use it — but the draft-only constraint effectively scopes applicability.

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