vat_rates_delete

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: destructiveHint=true would suggest hard removal, but the description clarifies the record is only marked deleted, historical invoice integrity is preserved, and existing invoices are unaffected. Gap: it never says whether the soft-delete is reversible (there is no vat_rates_restore sibling) or what happens on a repeat call, despite idempotentHint=true.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the soft-delete semantics, followed by the blocking constraints and the invoice-impact reassurance. No filler and no repetition of 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, invariants, and preconditions well. It leaves the response shape and reversibility undefined, which are the only meaningful omissions.

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% and both parameters (uuid, companyId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds nothing about the uuid targeting or the active-company override behavior, so the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Soft-delete a VAT rate') with the mutation semantics spelled out immediately. It is trivially distinguishable from sibling operations like vat_rates_update, vat_rates_create, and vat_rates_list 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 clear preconditions and the workaround ('Cannot delete the default rate (set another as default first) or the last remaining rate'), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before calling. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to reach for this tool, but for a delete with no competing sibling there is little to route between.

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