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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that all associated data is deleted, that a Trip Pass can be permanently consumed, and that the server refuses the call until pass-loss acknowledgement is provided. These are important behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 three sentences, front-loads the main action, and then explains the pass-loss consequence and acknowledgement gate. Every sentence contributes directly to safe invocation.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted, the Trip Pass consequence, and the acknowledgement requirement. The remaining parameter details such as confirm are covered by the schema.

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%, and the schema already documents tripId, confirm, and acknowledgePassLoss with the pass-return conditions. The description reinforces when acknowledgePassLoss is required but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Delete a trip', and adds scope with 'all associated data'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling deletion tools such as trip_item_delete or trip_note_delete beyond the implied whole-trip scope.

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?

It gives a clear conditional usage rule: if planning has started and a Trip Pass exists, the caller must pass acknowledgePassLoss=true or the call is refused. It does not name alternatives or explicitly describe when not to use this versus sibling tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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