Save a location to a trip with coordinates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name | |
| name | Yes | Location name | |
| type | No | Location type | OTHER |
| notes | No | Additional notes | |
| tripId | Yes | Trip ID | |
| address | No | Full address | |
| country | No | Country name | |
| placeId | No | Google Places ID | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'save' description is consistent. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, mainly that coordinates are part of the saved location. It does not address duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, validation, or return effects.
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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core action and key constraint efficiently.
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?
Combined with a fully-described schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple add operation. However, it lacks sibling differentiation, usage conditions, and any mention of side effects or response shape. The schema carries most of the invocation burden.
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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description's mention of 'coordinates' usefully points to the required latitude/longitude fields, but it adds little meaning beyond the detailed schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save a location to a trip', which clearly indicates the operation and distinguishes it from trip_location_delete/list/nearby. It also calls out coordinates as a key part of the operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling trip_item_add, and 'location' is somewhat generic on its own.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trip_item_add or trip_transport_add. The sentence states only what the tool does, not the conditions, prerequisites, or context that should trigger its use.
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.