Permanently deletes a draft receipt by UUID while preserving the audit trail; issued receipts must be canceled instead.
Permanently delete a receipt. Only draft receipts can be deleted. Use cancel for issued receipts to preserve the audit trail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the receipt to delete | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the draft-only eligibility gate and the audit-trail rationale. It stops short of clarifying how the presence of a sibling receipts_restore interacts with the claim of permanence, which is a meaningful ambiguity for a destructive tool.
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, no filler, and the destructive action plus the eligibility constraint are front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is not reconciling "permanently delete" with the existence of receipts_restore.
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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (uuid as the target, companyId as a default override). The description adds no format or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Permanently delete a receipt") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling receipts_cancel by scoping deletion to drafts. An agent can tell it apart from receipts_cancel and receipts_restore 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?
Gives an explicit precondition ("Only draft receipts can be deleted") and names the alternative tool with its rationale ("Use cancel for issued receipts to preserve the audit trail"). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern in full.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.