invoices_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility ('This action is irreversible') and the draft-only restriction, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention what happens to associated data (attachments, events, etc.) or whether any permissions are needed beyond the delete operation, given the adjacent invoices_restore sibling exists.

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 tight sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the irreversibility warning, then the alternative. Perfectly scannable.

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 delete tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: irreversible destructive action, draft-only scoping, and sibling alternative. It could note side effects on linked records or what a successful deletion returns, but given the simplicity of a delete operation, 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context by explaining the draft-only constraint that governs which invoices are valid candidates. It doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema is fully sufficient, warranting a solid score above baseline.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Permanently delete a draft invoice.' States the exact status constraint ('Only invoices with status draft can be deleted') and explicitly references the sibling alternative invoices_cancel for issued invoices, distinguishing it from similarly-named sibling tools.

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 states when this tool applies (draft invoices only) and when not to use it, naming the alternative: 'For issued invoices, use invoices_cancel instead.' This is textbook usage guidance with a clear exclusion and alternative.

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