Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious side effect: the day is flagged as user-edited so a later re-generation never overwrites it. It also reveals the two-phase write protocol (status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token, actual write only via confirm_action) and the ownership constraint, none of which the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, target, identifier and editable fields, then moves to side effects, then to the confirmation protocol under an explicit CAPS label. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing restates the title or the schema.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and only coarse annotations, this covers the gaps that matter: what is mutated, what side effect persists, who can reach the row, and the exact two-step flow required to actually commit the write. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does name every editable field (title, summary, accommodation_name, notes, estimated_cost_eur) and the two identifiers that key the row. What it does not add is disambiguation between near-neighbours like summary vs notes, or whether estimated_cost_eur is per night or per day, leaving some ambiguity that field names alone only partly resolve.

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?

Specific verb plus tightly scoped resource: 'Edit one day of a road trip ... identified by trip_id + day_number', with the editable field set enumerated inline. It also explicitly fences off route geometry as belonging to generate_trip, so the agent can separate this tool from its nearest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

States the selection condition (one day, keyed by trip_id + day_number), the exclusion (route geometry is produced by generate_trip and is not editable here), the authorization bound (only the caller's own trip), and the mandatory confirmation handoff to confirm_action. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.