payments_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 transparently discloses the permanent/irreversible nature, downstream effects on invoice amountPaid/balance, and potential status changes to 'unpaid' or 'partially_paid'. This is strong behavioral context for a destructive mutation tool; only a minor gap is not describing the response/cascade beyond invoice side effects.

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?

Two sentences, every phrase earns its place—what it does, the side effects, and an explicit irreversibility caution. Front-loaded with the primary action. No redundancy or filler.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the necessary behavioral territory: action, irreversible side effects on the invoice, and the correction use-case. It could mention response/return expectations or permission requirements, but given the schema fully documents parameters, the description is arguably complete for typical deletion usage.

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% (all 3 params documented in schema). The description adds value by clarifying the paymentId comes 'from payments_list', and contextually explains that deleting a payment triggers invoice recomputation (explaining why invoiceId is needed). It reinforces the linkage between parameters and the described behavior.

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 ('Permanently delete'), the resource ('a recorded payment from an invoice'), and the consequential effects (updates amountPaid, balance, and may change invoice status). It unambiguously distinguishes from the payment_create and payments_list siblings. This is a specific, well-scoped purpose statement.

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 makes clear it is for 'corrections' of recorded payments, and warns the action is irreversible. It implicitly contrasts with payments_create (creating) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out when-not-to-use. The correction context and irreversibility warning give reasonable guidance.

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