create_itineraryCreate a new (empty) itinerary attributed to the Iconic Expeditions concierge, made public and returned with its share link. Days are created automatically. Requires a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Itinerary title, e.g. '7-Day Hwange Safari' | |
| num_days | Yes | Number of days | |
| start_date | No | Optional ISO date string for day 1, e.g. '2025-06-01' | |
| description | No | Optional short description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description covers key behaviors: auth requirement (bearer token), public visibility, auto-created days, and share-link return. However, it omits side effects, reversibility, or consequences of creation, which is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key behaviors. No wordiness. Slight improvement possible by merging the auth requirement into the first sentence, but already efficient.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially covers response (share link) and auto-created days. Missing details on return structure, error behavior, and prerequisites beyond bearer token. Adequate but not comprehensive for a creation tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: 'optional ISO date string' and 'optional short description' are already present. No parameter-value enrichment (e.g., constraints or examples) beyond what's in 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('itinerary'), qualifying it as 'empty' and attributing to the concierge. It distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like update_itinerary (modify existing) and generate_itinerary_from_places (from places).
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 'use when starting from scratch' via 'empty' and notes that days are created automatically, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools like add_activity or generate_itinerary_from_places.
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.