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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., permanence, cascading effects, permissions). Since the bar is lower with annotations present, it still earns only a 2 because it adds nothing beyond the name and annotation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with a single parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'travel document' (visa? passport?) or whether this overlaps with delete_visa. It lacks any indication of the deletion's permanence or side effects. Given no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 0% and the description fails to explain the document_id parameter. There is no mention of how to obtain it, its format, or that it should reference a document from list_documents. The description provides zero additional meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (user's travel documents). It distinguishes from sibling delete_* tools by focusing on 'travel documents', though it does not specify which types (e.g., passport vs. visa) are included. This is a clear but not fully specific purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_visa or delete_accommodation. It does not specify exclusions or context for when this should be preferred.

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