Permanently delete a trip and everything on it — stops, flights, bookings, activities — for every member. Owner only. Irreversible; confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journey_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by detailing the exact consequences: it deletes stops, flights, bookings, activities, and affects every member. It also adds 'Irreversible' and 'Owner only' which are not in annotations. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the structured data, warning agents about the permanent and broad impact.
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 two sentences, perfectly concise. The first sentence states the core function and scope, the second adds permissions and a warning. No redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and earns every word.
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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the exact effect (deletes the trip and all sub-items), the scope (for every member), the permission requirement (owner only), and the irreversibility with a confirm-first instruction. This is complete given the tool's simplicity and the presence of destructiveHint.
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?
The schema lists only journey_id as a string with no description, and the tool description has 0% schema coverage. However, the description mentions 'a trip' which implies that journey_id is the trip's identifier, adding some semantic context. It does not explicitly explain how to obtain the ID or format expectations, but for a single simple parameter, the implied meaning might be sufficient. Still, it falls short of fully documenting the parameter's purpose.
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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently delete a trip and everything on it — stops, flights, bookings, activities — for every member.' It specifies the verb (delete), resource (trip), and scope (everything on it, for every member), and distinguishes it from sibling delete_* tools that target individual items. The inclusion of 'travel' and the specific list of sub-items makes it unambiguous.
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 usage context: 'Owner only' indicates who should use it, and 'Irreversible; confirm with the user first' gives a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'use delete_flight for a single flight' or 'use leave_journey to leave without deleting', the emphasis on 'everything on it' for every member implicitly contrasts with lighter deletion or leave options. This is strong but not fully explicit about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.