vat_rates_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does well: it explains what soft-delete means (marked not physically removed), the reason (preserving historical invoice integrity), and two failure constraints. It effectively discloses that this is a non-destructive mutation despite the 'delete' name.

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, zero filler. Each sentence adds unique value: what soft-delete means, the constraints, and the impact on invoices. Exceptionally tight while still comprehensive.

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 tool operating on a single record with a clear effect, the description is quite complete. It covers semantics (soft vs hard), constraints (default and last-rate), and side effects (invoices untouched). No output schema exists, but the description's clarity about behavior compensates well for this simple mutation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions for uuid and companyId are already clear. The description's deletion constraints add context around which uuid values are valid targets, providing marginal added value.

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 uses a specific verb (soft-delete) and resource (VAT rate), clearly distinguishing it from hard-delete operations. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like vat_rates_create and vat_rates_update by focusing on the deletion semantics. The soft-delete nature is a specific, distinguishing behavioral detail.

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 states constraints: cannot delete the default rate (set another as default first) and cannot delete the last remaining rate. It also clarifies scope (existing invoices not affected), giving the agent clear go/no-go criteria. This is better than most — it provides upfront 'do not call if' conditions.

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