Record a passport from its details alone (no scan needed). Also adds the country to the user's nationalities, which is what visa answers are computed from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| is_primary | No | ||
| issue_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| expiry_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| country_code | Yes | ||
| passport_number | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint: false). The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context by noting the tool works without a scan and, crucially, that it also adds the country to the user's nationalities—an important side effect for visa computations. This goes beyond the basic write/read flags, though it doesn't cover all possible behaviors like duplicate handling.
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, each contributing essential information: the primary action and the key side effect. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description conveys the core action and an important side effect, but given there is no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, it leaves gaps about return values, parameter usage, and edge cases. It's adequate for a straightforward create operation but not fully complete for an agent to understand all consequences.
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 only 33% (only issue_date and expiry_date have descriptions), and the description does not mention any parameters by name or explain their semantics. The phrase 'from its details alone' is vague and does not help an agent understand required vs optional fields or what each parameter represents. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not.
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 records a passport from details alone, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from potential scan-based workflows by adding '(no scan needed)' and highlights the side effect of adding the country to nationalities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling create_* tools beyond the resource type, so it's clear but not maximally distinguishing.
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 implies usage when passport details are available and no scan is required, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The side-effect note ('adds the country to the user's nationalities') provides some cautionary context, but there's no direct comparison to other tools like create_visa or update_* functions.
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.