tool_update_trip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions updating fields and provides acceptable values for status and date formats. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., overwriting notes, how shortlisted items are stored) or persistence behavior. It describes actions but not behavioral implications.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary followed by a structured parameter list. Each sentence adds value, but the list of checklist keys could be more concise. Still, it is well-organized and efficient.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality but misses details like how shortlist items are stored, whether checklist notes are appended or replaced, and whether the tool returns a response. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning. It explains each parameter, including allowed status values, date format, checklist keys, and the purpose of shortlist options. However, 'shortlist_flight' and 'shortlist_hotel' are only described as 'Flight option dict to save', which is vague. Overall, significantly compensates for schema gaps.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a saved trip', listing specific actions: change status/dates, tick checklist items, shortlist options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_save_trip (create) and tool_delete_trip (delete).

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 lists what can be updated but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with tool_get_trip_status for reading or tool_save_trip for creating. Usage is implied but not clarified with specific scenarios.

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