proforma_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 clearly discloses the destructive nature ('permanently delete') and the audit trail implications of using the wrong method. It doesn't state whether there's any confirmation/undo, but 'permanently' signals irreversibility effectively.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action and constraint; the second provides the alternative path. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the core lifecycle constraint (draft-only), the irreversibility ('permanently'), and the alternative for other states. It doesn't explain return values, but for a delete operation without an output schema this is a reasonable acceptance. It could note whether bulk deletion exists as a sibling, but that's implied.

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 (uuid and companyId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the state restriction on which proformas can be deleted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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?

The description clearly states 'Permanently delete a proforma invoice' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (proforma invoice). It also adds the critical scoping detail that only draft proforma invoices can be deleted, distinguishing this from the siblings proforma_invoices_cancel.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (draft proformas only) and provides an explicit alternative: 'Use cancel for sent/accepted/rejected proformas to preserve audit trail.' This directly names the alternative tool and the condition under which it should be used, which is excellent guidance.

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