merit_delete_sales_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the most critical behavioral trait—irreversibility ('There is no undo')—and flags destructiveness upfront. However, it omits side effects (e.g., impact on linked payments or e-invoices) and any preconditions on which invoices may be deleted, so coverage is partial.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the safety warning front-loaded, followed by the operation, endpoint, parameter meaning, and irreversibility. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call contract: what it does, the endpoint, the parameter, and the no-undo consequence. The only gaps are response shape and any restrictions on deletable invoices, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 100% (id is described as 'Invoice GUID / SIHId (required)'), so baseline is 3. The description restates nearly the same information ('id is the invoice GUID (SIHId)') without adding new nuance, meeting but not exceeding the schema's already-documented meaning.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('delete a Merit Aktiva sales invoice') plus the exact endpoint (POST /api/v1/deleteinvoice). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merit_get_sales_invoice, merit_list_sales_invoices, and merit_delete_purchase_invoice, so an agent can identify the operation without opening schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives—no mention of prerequisites (e.g., invoice state), no suggestion to verify with merit_get_sales_invoice first, and no exclusions. The DESTRUCTIVE warning conveys caution but not selection criteria.

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