Create a task/reminder for a trip (e.g., renew passport, book activity)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| tripId | Yes | Trip ID | |
| dueDate | No | Due date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| dueTime | No | Due time (HH:MM) | |
| priority | No | Priority level | MEDIUM |
| tripItemId | No | Optional link to a trip item | |
| description | No | Detailed description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the create operation itself—no mention of side effects, duplication, permissions, or resulting state. It does not contradict 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource, followed by a useful illustrative example. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with only two required parameters and a fully described schema, the description and schema together are sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could mention that tasks are scoped to a tripId, but the schema already makes that explicit, and no output schema means return-value details are not required.
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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's examples illustrate what kinds of tasks to create but add no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource, 'a task/reminder for a trip,' and gives concrete examples (renew passport, book activity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling task tools like trip_task_list, trip_task_update, and trip_task_delete.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trip_task_update, trip_task_complete, or trip_note_create. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the tool name; no contexts, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
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.