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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that the step becomes visible to everyone who can see the trip at its privacy level, that per-call confirmation is the default and can be disabled, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required — all real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Operationally front-loaded, but the visibility rule is stated twice ('People who can see the trip see it' and 'Everyone who can see the trip, by its privacy level, sees the step'), and the confirmation rule is also restated. Two sentences of the passage are redundant.

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 write tool with no output schema and six fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials: what is created, who sees it, consent requirements, and auth needs. Return-value behavior is not described, but no output schema exists to lean on, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including formats. The description adds only modest value, clarifying that title/story/photo URLs are optional and that date and place determine the step's position on the route. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a step to a trip') with the payload scope (story, photos, place, time), which cleanly separates it from the bulk polarsteps_import_steps and the media-only polarsteps_add_step_photos. It never names a sibling outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives context on default confirmation behavior and when to confirm with the user, but never states when to choose this over polarsteps_add_step_photos, polarsteps_update_step, or polarsteps_import_steps. Usage is implied by 'adds one step' rather than spelled out.

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