add_activityAdd an activity to a specific day and time slot (morning/afternoon/evening). Optionally link to a content item using its type and id. Requires a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | Short title for the activity | |
| day_id | Yes | The day UUID to add the activity to | |
| description | No | ||
| itinerary_id | Yes | Parent itinerary UUID | |
| wp_content_id | No | Source content id | |
| wp_content_type | No | Content type to link | |
| duration_minutes | No |
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 states the tool 'requires a bearer token' which implies authentication needs. However, it does not disclose what side effects occur (e.g., does it overwrite existing activities?), what happens on conflict, or how the response behaves (since there is no output schema). The mutation intent is clear, but missing important behavioral traits.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient and uses 25 words to convey the core action, slot options, and optional linking. Every clause earns its place.
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 complexity of 8 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to existing activities in the same slot, what the return value is, or how the optional linking parameters interact (e.g., if one is provided, must the other be as well?). The tool has many siblings, and the description does not sufficiently differentiate behavior.
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 63%, so the description already covers some parameter meaning (slot options, optional content linking). The description repeats the slot values from the enum but does not explain the 'wp_content_type' semantics beyond what the schema provides. For 8 parameters, it adds modest value over 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 clearly states the action ('Add an activity'), the target ('to a specific day and time slot'), and specifies the slot options ('morning/afternoon/evening'). It also mentions an optional capability to link to content. It distinguishes from related tools like 'add_day' or 'create_itinerary', though it could be more explicit about how it differs from 'write_itinerary_day_detail'.
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 for adding activities to days, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_itinerary_day_detail' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned (beyond the bearer token).
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.
Every tool targets a distinct operation or resource: create, read, update, delete for itineraries; add/delete for activities and days; content/destination retrieval; pricing and booking services. The two aliases are explicitly marked as backward-compatible, so agents can still distinguish them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_itinerary, delete_activity, get_itinerary_dossier). Even the aliases (get_wp_content, search_wp_content) adhere to the same convention, ensuring predictability.
23 tools is on the higher side but justified by the domain's complexity: itinerary CRUD, day/activity management, content search, destination lookup, pricing, booking services, and dossier handling. Each tool serves a clear purpose, though minor consolidation could be possible.
Covers the full lifecycle for itineraries and most related entities. Missing operations like updating or deleting a day, or updating an activity, are minor gaps that agents can work around by recreating or using get_itinerary. The planning dossier and booking request tools add depth.