dawarich_create_visit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that the tool may also create a place, which is a meaningful side effect, but it does not explain what 'matching/manual' entails, when it triggers, or other important behaviors like idempotency, permission requirements, or error handling. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent of the tool's full impact.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It provides the main action up front but omits essential details that would require additional sentences. The brevity crosses the line from conciseness into incompleteness, so while it is well-structured, it does not fully earn its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—it creates a visit and potentially a place, with 7 input parameters—the one-sentence description is not sufficient. There is an output schema, so return value details are not required, but the description does not explain the relationship between visits and places, the conditions under which a place is created, or how the parameters interact. The overall context is incomplete and would leave an agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters. It does not mention how fields like name, latitude, longitude, started_at, or ended_at map to the visit or the optional place. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and relationships of the parameters.

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 primary action: creating a Dawarich visit. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling dawarich_create_place by focusing on visits, and its mention of 'matching/manual place if needed' hints at a secondary behavior. However, the phrase 'matching/manual place' is ambiguous and could confuse the agent about when a place is actually created.

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 implies usage by stating 'Create a visit', but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like dawarich_update_visit or dawarich_create_place. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned. The context is only implicit, so it meets the 'implied usage' baseline but stops short of providing clear guidance.

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