proforma_invoices_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: that deletion is permanent (irreversible, no restore path offered for proformas unlike invoices_restore), that it is gated on draft status, and the audit-trail consequence of the alternative. What it omits is the failure behavior (what error/result when a non-draft uuid is passed) and the effect of the companyId override.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: action + permanence first, precondition second, alternative and rationale third. Zero padding and correctly front-loaded.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage, no output schema, and complete schema docs, the description supplies the decision-critical information (irreversibility, draft-only gate, alternative). It stops short of describing failure modes or whether the operation is recoverable by an admin, which would close the remaining gap.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for 'uuid' or for what 'companyId overrides configured default' means in the delete context.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('proforma invoice') and immediately scopes it against the sibling operation ('Use cancel for sent/accepted/rejected proformas'). An agent can distinguish this from proforma_invoices_cancel or proforma_invoices_bulk_delete without opening any 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 gives the precondition ('Only draft proforma invoices can be deleted') and names the alternative plus the reason to choose it ('Use cancel ... to preserve audit trail'). This is the when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative triad in two sentences.

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