recurring_invoices_bulk_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is partially tolerant — it returns a count plus per-item errors for entries that could not be deleted, telling the agent this is not an all-or-nothing delete. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether deletion is soft or hard.

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 waste, with the operation front-loaded and the return behavior following. Nothing in it repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return shape (count plus per-item errors), which is the main thing an agent needs for a partial-failure bulk operation. It leaves open the side effects of deleting a template that already spawned invoices, which for a destructive tool is a meaningful residual 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 there, including the 1-100 bounds on ids and the companyId override. The description adds nothing beyond the plural implication of the ids array, so the baseline of 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 — delete multiple recurring invoice templates — with the bulk scope made explicit in 'multiple ... in a single request'. An agent can distinguish it from recurring_invoices_delete (single) and from recurring_invoices_bulk_toggle_active without opening a 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?

The bulk framing implies when to prefer this over the single-item recurring_invoices_delete, but that alternative is never named and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. what happens to already-issued invoices from a template) are given. Usage is only inferable from the plural wording.

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