recurring_invoices_delete

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

This is a destructive operation (permanently delete) with no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the delete is permanent, that previously generated invoices are unaffected, and implicitly that this is irreversible (as opposed to the toggle). It could add more about permissions required or confirmation behaviors, but the key destructive aspects are well disclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the non-destructive scope clarification, and the alternative usage guidance. No wasted words, no redundancy with the schema.

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 destructive single-resource delete tool with 100% schema coverage and a simple 2-parameter signature, the description is essentially complete. It addresses the key user concern (what happens to generated invoices) and the key alternative (toggle). Minor gaps could include return value info, but there's no output schema and the tool is straightforward enough that this is sufficient.

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 parameters (uuid and companyId) documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add semantic value to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 the verb (permanently delete), the resource (recurring invoice template), and the scope (a template, not generated invoices). It distinguishes itself from the toggling tools by noting previously generated invoices are not affected and offering an alternative. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 distinguishes this from the toggle tool ('Use toggle to temporarily pause instead'), providing clear guidance on when to use this destructive delete vs. a temporary pause. It also clarifies the scope of deletion (only the template, not previously generated invoices). This is strong usage guidance.

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