iva_conference_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names destructive and state-changing operations like delete, move, stop, and update, but does not disclose side effects, confirmation requirements, permission needs, or any constraints. Similarly, the demo/video control operations imply session state changes but no behavioral context is given.

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 terse sentence that front-loads the domain name, but it is mostly a comma-separated rehash of categories already present in the action enum. The trailing 'Clients API v2.28.12' adds no operational value. Efficient in length, but not well structured for an agent to extract actionable guidance.

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?

This is a highly complex dispatcher tool with 14 parameters, 19 action enum values, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not map actions to required parameters, mention return behavior, or clarify prerequisites. An agent would need to rely almost entirely on the schema to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the parameter schema already documents every parameter individually. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only lists operation categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate with extra context.

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 identifies the resource as 'IVA conference documents' and enumerates the main families of operations: CRUD/list/move, demo control, and page/path/upload queries. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic iva_documents by conference scope, but it is a broad capability list rather than a single focused verb+resource statement.

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 iva_documents, iva_conference_media, or iva_file_resources. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions, so an agent must infer applicability solely from the resource name and operation list.

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