Create a share link for a trip (owner only). Recipients can use this link to become collaborators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tripId | Yes | Trip ID | |
| maxUses | No | Maximum number of times link can be used | |
| permission | No | Permission level for recipients | VIEWER |
| expiresInDays | No | Days until link expires |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires owner authorization, creates a share link, and the link lets recipients become collaborators. This gives the agent an accurate expectation of the tool's side effect.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds the most important constraint ('owner only') and the follow-on effect for recipients.
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 create operation with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the action, the authorization requirement, and the consequence for recipients. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, though it does not cover edge cases like link expiry or revocation.
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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?
The description states a specific action ('Create a share link'), a clear resource ('for a trip'), and a key constraint ('owner only'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like trip_share_list and trip_share_revoke because it explicitly describes the creation action and the recipient effect.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for creating share links and is restricted to the trip owner. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the owner-only note and the recipient-collaborator effect make the intended usage clear relative to the sibling share/list/revoke tools.
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.