receipts_delete

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the permanent/destructive nature ('Permanently delete'), the draft-only constraint, and the audit trail rationale. It doesn't mention auth requirements or what happens to related data, but the core destructive behavior is well disclosed. The absence of annotations means a 4 is earned by explicit disclosure of the key behavioral trait.

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 short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word carries meaning.

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?

The tool is a simple delete operation with one required param and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavioral constraint (draft-only, permanent) fully. Some additional context about what happens to the receipt's associated data or audit entries could be added, but for a straightforward delete tool this is adequately 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well documented ('UUID of the receipt to delete' and 'Company UUID'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is appropriate given full 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 receipt' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting the draft-only constraint versus cancel for issued receipts. This differentiates it well from receipts_cancel and the many other delete 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 to use this tool ('Only draft receipts can be deleted') and when not to ('Use cancel for issued receipts to preserve the audit trail'), naming the alternative tool directly. This is exactly the kind of when/when-not/alternatives guidance the rubric rewards.

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