Delete a draft credit note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode (finalized notes are refused, identified by name) and the reason. It omits irreversibility/recoverability, idempotency on a non-existent id, and any permission requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence justifies the draft-only restriction rather than repeating it. The rationale ('leave their copy pointing at nothing') earns its place by explaining the guard.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, applicable state, and failure behavior. It leaves success behavior and permission/irreversibility details unstated, minor gaps for this simple a 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% and the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with a format example. The description's 'by its draft id' reinforces that the id must reference a draft, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a draft credit note) and constrains scope to drafts, which cleanly separates it from siblings like credit_note_finalize, credit_note_update, and credit_note_get. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the 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 a clear when-to-use condition ('entered wrongly') and an explicit exclusion (a finalized note is refused), so the agent knows this is only for mistaken drafts. It does not name an alternative action for correcting a finalized note, which keeps it short of a 5.

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