add_trip

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely non-obvious traits: times must be ISO-formatted and identical input reuses an existing trip rather than creating a duplicate. It still omits permissions, what happens with the defaulted fields, and what the call returns.

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?

A single compact clause pair with no filler and the key constraint front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. The terseness is efficient but tips into under-specification given eight parameters.

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 eight-parameter write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, two short clauses are far from sufficient. An agent can attempt a call but cannot know field semantics, defaults, or the result shape.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it only constrains start_at/end_at to ISO format. Origin, destination, transport, city_tier, purpose_code, and participants are left entirely unexplained, including what values purpose_code or city_tier accept.

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 verb 'write' plus the resource 'itinerary' signals creation of a trip record, but the wording drifts from the tool name (trip vs itinerary) and never states that it registers a travel segment with origin/destination and times. It also gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like travel_days or add_expense.

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 on when to call this versus add_expense, build_claim, or travel_days, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only routing-adjacent information is a reuse behavior, which is not a usage condition.

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