delete_trade_document

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates deletion but does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on trade state), or error conditions. The lack of detail leaves the agent underinformed about consequences.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it omits information about success/failure responses (e.g., whether it returns a status or confirmation), which would be helpful for an agent expecting feedback.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying the document types ('invoice or proof of settlement'), which clarifies the scope beyond the schema's generic 'document' description. This helps the agent understand what kind of UUID is expected.

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 action ('Deletes') and the specific resource ('attached invoice or proof of settlement document from a trade'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_beneficiary or upload_trade_document by specifying the document type and context.

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only implies usage via the action but fails to guide the agent on decision-making between related tools like delete_trade_payment or upload_trade_document.

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