Permanently deletes a draft invoice using its UUID. Use only for draft-status invoices; cancel issued invoices instead.
Permanently delete a draft invoice. Only invoices with status "draft" can be deleted. This action is irreversible. For issued invoices, use invoices_cancel instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Invoice UUID to delete | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
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 safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: permanence, irreversibility, and the draft-status precondition. It could say more about side effects, but for a simple delete tool this is strong.
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?
Front-loads the key action and constraint, then gives the alternative in three short sentences. There is no wasted text and no buried critical condition.
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, schema-complete, annotation-rich delete tool, the description supplies the crucial missing context: draft-only applicability, irreversibility, and the correct alternative for issued invoices. No output schema is needed for this 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 both the required uuid and optional companyId override are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a draft invoice") and makes the draft-only scope explicit. It also distinguishes the operation from invoices_cancel, so the agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?
Explicitly says when the tool applies (draft invoices only) and when it does not, naming invoices_cancel as the alternative for issued invoices. This is exactly the routing guidance needed among the many invoice siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.