dawarich_update_trip

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'currently reports that API gap', which is a significant behavioral disclosure indicating the tool may not perform actual updates. However, it does not explain what 'reports' means (error, warning, etc.) or other behaviors like permissions or side effects.

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 one sentence, which is concise, but its structure is awkward, combining the purpose with a conditional clause and a semicolon. It is not a tautology and includes some essential limitation info, but could be better phrased.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It fails to describe when to use the tool, what parameters mean, or what the output represents. The only valuable information is the current limitation about the API gap, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 mentions no parameters, leaving all six parameters (trip_id, name, started_at, ended_at, description, dry_run) without semantic context beyond their names. For example, the effect of dry_run is unexplored.

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 starts with 'Update a Dawarich trip', which conveys the action and resource, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings. However, the appended condition 'when /api/v1/trips exists; currently reports that API gap' introduces ambiguity about whether the tool actually performs updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only condition mentioned is about the API endpoint existence, not user intent or prerequisites. Sibling tools like create_trip and delete_trip are not referenced.

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