request_bookingsStart a PAID booking service: verification PLUS we make all the bookings (lodges, transfers, activities, permits). Returns a Stripe checkout URL. Requires a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| itinerary_id | Yes | ||
| contact_email | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: it's a paid service, requires a bearer token, and returns a Stripe checkout URL. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It covers the action, requirement, and output format well, though it could mention side effects (e.g., will charges be made immediately?).
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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the key action. It wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the usage context from the output description.
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 (3 parameters, a payment tool, no output schema), the description provides essential context: what the tool does, what it returns (Stripe URL), and requirements (bearer token). It lacks details on what happens after payment or error states, but given the context signals, it's fairly complete.
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 schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond listing parameter names. For example, 'notes' is not mentioned in the description, and 'contact_email' is not explained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema coverage.
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 verb ('Start'), the resource ('PAID booking service'), and the scope ('verification PLUS we make all the bookings'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'request_verification' by combining verification with booking, which is a specific use case.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for paid bookings that include verification. It lists what bookings are made (lodges, transfers, activities, permits). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude cases where it shouldn't be used or mention alternatives for non-paid scenarios.
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.