recurring_invoices_bulk_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description states it returns counts and errors for failed items, which is some transparency about partial-failure behavior. However, it's a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage—it doesn't disclose irreversibility, whether deletion is permanent or soft (restorable), whether related data is affected, or any permission requirements.

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, direct and efficient. The description front-loads the action and resource in the first phrase, and the second sentence adds useful detail about the return value. No filler or redundancy. Slightly more behavioral detail could be added but the structure itself is well-executed for a destructive bulk operation.

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 destructive bulk operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries significant burden. It covers the basic purpose and return behavior (count + errors), but lacks detail on irreversibility, whether existing recurring invoice schedules based on these templates are affected, or how companyId scoping interacts with deletion. For a destructive bulk operation, this could reasonably be more thorough.

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 both 'ids' (array of UUIDs 1-100) and 'companyId' (overrides configured default) documented. The schema explicitly describes constraints like min/max items and the company override semantics. The description adds marginal value by confirming the 'ids' array is what gets deleted, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it deletes multiple recurring invoice templates in a single request, with a specific verb (delete) and resource (recurring invoice templates). It distinguishes from the singular recurring_invoices_delete sibling by noting 'multiple' and 'bulk'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other bulk operations likes recurring_invoices_bulk_toggle_active or recurring_invoices_bulk_issue_now, but the verb 'delete' clearly separates them.

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 implies bulk deletion use case by stating 'in a single request' and mentions returning counts and errors for failed items, which conveys batch-processing context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this vs the singular recurring_invoices_delete, nor does it mention any irreversibility warning or confirmation requirements that one might expect with bulk destructive operations.

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