dawarich_delete_trip

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

The description discloses a behavioral caveat: the tool currently reports an API gap, implying it may not complete a deletion. Since no annotations are provided, this is useful transparency, but it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as irreversibility of deletion or the effect of the dry_run parameter.

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 sentence and action-oriented, but the phrasing 'when /api/v1/trips exists; currently reports that API gap' is awkward and somewhat confusing. It is concise but not optimally structured for clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the tool's actual behavior is critically underspecified. The agent is left uncertain whether calling this tool will delete a trip or simply report a missing endpoint. The dry_run parameter's effect is also unexplained, making it difficult to assess consequences.

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%: the description does not mention trip_id or dry_run. The dry_run parameter, in particular, is critical for understanding whether the tool performs an actual delete or a simulated one, and this is left entirely unexplained. The schema provides only types, adding minimal value.

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 action ('Delete a Dawarich trip') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_place. However, the added clause 'when /api/v1/trips exists; currently reports that API gap' introduces ambiguity about whether the tool actually performs deletion, reducing clarity.

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 only usage guidance is the conditional 'when /api/v1/trips exists,' which is vague and not actionable. No mention of when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_trip) or when not to use it. The 'currently reports that API gap' suggests a limitation but does not instruct the agent on handling it.

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