update_travel_item

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety/idempotency basics are covered. The description adds the partial-update semantic (unsent fields are left alone), which is genuine extra context. However, it says nothing about destructive consequences, permissions, or whether null/empty values clear data, leaving the destructiveHint unexplained.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the calling convention. It is arguably too terse for a 20-parameter mutation, but there is no wasted text.

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 a 20-parameter, low-coverage, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It never points to list_travel_items as the source of travel_entity_id (only the schema hints at that), never describes the many address/geo/contact fields, and gives no picture of the result of the update.

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 20 parameters and only 5% schema description coverage, the description carries almost the full burden and delivers essentially nothing: no field meanings, no format hints for latitude/longitude/country_code, no clarification of the two enums, and no explanation of display_order. The only added meaning is the general partial-update rule, which is not field-specific.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update a travel item.' Combined with the name and siblings (add_travel_item, remove_travel_item, list_travel_items), an agent can identify it as a mutation on an existing travel item. It stops short of naming any sibling or distinguishing which item type/entity it operates on.

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?

'Provide only the fields you want to change' conveys partial-update invocation style, which is useful guidance. But there is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. item must exist, obtained via list_travel_items), and no note on what happens when a field is omitted.

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