Add a comment to a trip item. Use @name to mention collaborators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Trip item ID | |
| content | Yes | Comment content (supports @mentions) | |
| mentions | No | Array of user IDs to mention |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the mention syntax ('Use @name to mention collaborators'). It does not disclose whether this mutates existing data, requires editing rights to the trip item, or whether mentions are resolved from the mentions array or parsed from content. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. The @mention guidance earns its place, though the description is brief.
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 simple create-like mutation with no output schema, it covers the core action and mention behavior. It does not explain whether the third optional mentions parameter is required when using @name, nor the response behavior, which are minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and includes descriptions for itemId, content, and mentions. The description adds the @name mention syntax context, but this is minor since the schema already says content supports @mentions. It does not explain how mentions relates to content mentions.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a trip item') and mentions @mentions, which distinguishes it from listing comments (trip_item_comment_list). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the resource and action are clear.
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 implies when to use it—when a comment needs to be added to a trip item—and gives formatting guidance for mentions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like trip_item_comment_list or discuss prerequisites such as permission to comment.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type and action, making selection. The main ambiguity is between trip_item_add and trip_transport_add, since trip_item_add lists transport as a category but trip_transport_add explicitly says to always use it instead for transport.
The naming pattern is highly consistent: trip_<resource>_<action>. Minor deviations exist with bare verbs like search and fetch, and trip_review uses a verb-only style, but these are easy to understand within the larger pattern.
37 tools is a large surface that exceeds the typical coherence threshold. While the domain is broad, the count makes the server feel heavy and harder for an agent to navigate compared to a more focused toolset.
The toolset provides strong CRUD/lifecycle coverage across trips, items, notes, tasks, locations, collaborators, shares, and transport, plus review and search capabilities. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct collaborator add, no location update, and no item-level comment delete, but these are workable.