Delete invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'cannot be undone.' It adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the draft-only state constraint, which is critical behavioral knowledge an agent needs to avoid failed calls. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens when invoked on a non-draft invoice (error vs silent no-op).

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 with zero wasted words. The core verb+resource is front-loaded, the critical draft-state constraint follows immediately, and the destructive warning closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter destructive tool with strong annotations, this is nearly complete. It covers the safety profile (destructive, irreversible), the state constraint (draft-only), and the routing to the correct sibling. It could optionally describe the response/return behavior, but nothing an agent critically needs to avoid misuse is missing.

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 50%: locationId is well-documented, but invoiceId is a bare string with no description. The tool description mentions 'invoice' and 'draft' context, which lets an agent infer invoiceId's purpose, but it doesn't explicitly compensate for the undocumented parameter. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource pair ('Delete an invoice') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ghl_void_invoice by scoping deletion to draft invoices only. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does 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?

The description explicitly states the condition for use ('Only works while it is a draft') and names the alternative with its routing condition ('a sent invoice must be voided with ghl_void_invoice instead'). This is textbook when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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