merit_delete_purchase_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly flags the two most critical behavioral traits: DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible ('There is no undo'). It does not speculate about cascading side effects on linked accounting records, but for a single-parameter delete tool this is above-average disclosure.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the DESTRUCTIVE warning is front-loaded, followed by the action, the parameter clarification, and the irreversibility note. Every element 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 low-complexity tool (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers what it does, the endpoint, the identifier semantics, and the irreversible nature. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; only speculative failure-mode detail (e.g., conflict with registered payments) could add more.

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 schema already documents id as 'Purchase invoice GUID / PIHId (required)'. The description reinforces this by restating that id is the PIHId, which adds only marginal value, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 Merit Aktiva purchase invoice') plus the exact endpoint. It is plainly distinguishable from every sibling: no other tool deletes purchase invoices, and merit_delete_sales_invoice/merit_delete_payment are clearly separate resources.

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 'no undo' warning conveys that this should only be invoked when deletion is certain, which is implied usage guidance rather than explicit when-to-use advice. It does not name alternatives such as merit_get_purchase_invoice or merit_list_purchase_invoices for first locating the target, nor does it state exclusions.

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