Update trip details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Trip name | |
| status | No | Trip status | |
| tripId | Yes | Trip ID | |
| endDate | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| currency | No | Currency code (USD, GBP, EUR) | |
| startDate | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| budgetTotal | No | Total budget | |
| destination | No | Destination city/country |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether fields are validated, what happens on invalid data, or what the response contains.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity borders on under-specification.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, partial-update semantics, required preconditions, or the meaning of 'details' beyond what the schema lists. An agent would need to infer most call context from the schema alone.
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 input schema already documents all parameter names, types, formats, and the status enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the full burden, so the baseline score of 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?
The description says 'Update trip details', which names a verb and a resource, so the basic purpose is clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, and it does not say which trip details can be changed or how it differs from sibling tools like trip_item_update. This makes the purpose somewhat vague without relying on the schema.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trip_create, trip_delete, or trip_item_update. The description provides no context about prerequisites, editability conditions, or situations where a different tool should be chosen.
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.