iva_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions delete operations, which imply mutation, but does not disclose that deletes are destructive, irreversible, or may require confirmation. There is no mention of authentication, side effects, or return behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that states scope and operations without redundancy. The API version is a minor extra but does not hurt clarity or structure.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description is very terse for a multi-action tool with destructive operations. It omits what the tool returns, when confirmation is needed, and how it relates to other document tools. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not provide enough operational context for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, and the schema already documents all six parameters including the action enum values and the confirm flag semantics. The tool description adds only a high-level summary of operations, so it does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 names a clear resource ('IVA user documents') and specific operations: convert, delete single/multiple, and list converted pages. This gives an agent enough to identify the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like iva_conference_documents.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The phrase 'IVA user documents' implies a scope, but the description does not state conditions like 'for user-level documents, not conference documents'.

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