Respond to a tour request — confirm with a date/time, propose alternates via notes, or decline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| tour_id | Yes | ||
| response | Yes | ||
| confirmed_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD; required if response='confirm' | |
| confirmed_time | No | e.g. '10:30am' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions that notes can propose alternates, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications, state changes), permissions needed, or what happens after confirmation/decline.
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?
Single sentence (17 words) is extremely concise, front-loaded with the verb 'Respond', and every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Description covers essential behaviors but lacks details on return values, success/failure indicators, and conditional requirements (e.g., confirmed_date required for confirm). For a tool with 5 params and no output schema, more completeness is needed.
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 has 5 parameters with only 40% description coverage. Description adds meaning by linking confirmed_date/time to confirm and note to proposing alternates, clarifying parameter usage beyond 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?
Description uses specific verb 'respond' and resource 'tour request' and distinguishes actions (confirm, decline, propose alternates). Clearly different from sibling tools like parent_request_tour and parent_cancel_tour.
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?
Description implies usage context (responding to a tour request) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
