Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: private trips are visible only to the owner, and making a trip public exposes its title, dates, and places to anyone. This goes beyond the structured annotations and warns about a privacy consequence.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the privacy scope, and the mandatory consent caveat. The key behavior is front-loaded and the warning is placed last without redundancy.

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 two-parameter setter with an enum and idempotency annotation, the combination of schema, annotations, and description is fully sufficient. The agent knows what the tool does, what the parameters mean, when to ask the user, and what the privacy implications are. No output schema is necessary for such a state-changing operation.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully: tripId is 'From list_trips' and visibility has an enum with an explanation. The description does not add deeper parameter-level semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Publish a trip on the user's public profile, or take it private again.' This identifies the verb, resource, and state change. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the behavior is distinct enough from create_trip, delete_trip, and set_visit_dates.

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 includes an important usage instruction: 'Always ask before making a trip public, since it then shows the trip's title, dates and places to anyone.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.