write_itinerary_day_detailWrite one day out at length — why it is shaped this way, what its timing depends on, what the alternatives cost — plus up to three callouts. Replaces that day's existing narrative and callouts. Requires a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callouts | No | ||
| narrative | Yes | Two or three short paragraphs, separated by blank lines. Plain text, no markup. | |
| day_number | Yes | ||
| itinerary_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool replaces existing narrative and callouts (a destructive behavior), but does not state return values, error conditions, or concurrency implications. It also mentions bearer token requirement, which adds some auth context. Overall, enough for a basic mutation tool.
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 compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core action and key constraints, with zero filler. It efficiently conveys the purpose and a few critical details.
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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior (replacement, callout limit, auth) and leaves the rest to schema. It is complete enough for a straightforward write operation, though a bit more on validation or return expectations would fully round it out.
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 only 25%, but the description enumerates the main fields (narrative, callouts) and their constraints (up to three, types). It does not detail callout kinds or title syntax, which the schema partially covers via enum. The description adds some value but not full compensation for the low 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 ('Write') and specific resource ('one day out at length') with detail on what it covers (why shaped, timing, alternatives) and up to three callouts. It also explicitly mentions replacement of existing narrative and callouts, distinguishing it from siblings like add_activity or update_itinerary.
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 implies the tool is for authoring detailed day-level content and replacing existing content, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus update_itinerary or add_day. The context is clear enough, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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.