Rename a trip, change its dates or description, archive it, or set its home-base countries (countries where the user has their own place — no missing-stay warnings there). Owner only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| end_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| journey_id | Yes | ||
| start_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| description | No | ||
| is_archived | No | ||
| home_base_country_codes | No | ISO country codes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses permission requirements ('Owner only') and a notable behavioral consequence ('no missing-stay warnings' for home-base countries). It also mentions archiving as an action. Combined with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), this provides good transparency, though it omits details on return values or error 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 a single, well-organized sentence listing actions and a clarifying note. It avoids repetition and fluff, making it easy to parse. The structure is efficient and direct, suitable for an agent.
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 presence of annotations (idempotent, destructive) and absence of an output schema, the description provides necessary context: what actions are possible, permission requirements, and a specific behavioral nuance. It does not address edge cases or error handling, but that is not always required. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.
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?
The description explicitly covers all parameters: 'rename' for name, 'change dates' for start/end dates, 'change description' for description, 'archive' for is_archived, and 'set home-base countries' for home_base_country_codes. It adds context for home_base_country_codes ('no missing-stay warnings') and aligns with schema descriptions for dates and country codes. The schema covers 43% of parameters descriptively, but the tool description fills in the rest with meaningful actions.
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 specifies the resource (journey/trip) and lists actionable verb-object pairs: rename, change dates, change description, archive, set home-base countries. It distinguishes itself from other update_* tools by focusing on journey-specific fields and mentions 'Owner only' to clarify access.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for updating journey attributes) and provides a usage constraint ('Owner only'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.
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.