Add a journal stop to a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool will not silently create places, that it returns a prompt instead, and how to override that with allow_new_place. Gaps remain on mutation specifics such as permission requirements, what the successful return payload contains, and behavior when multiple places match.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second labeled paragraph ('Place handling:') covers the only non-obvious behavior. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious behavior (place reuse and the prompt path). It does not describe the successful return value or error cases, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema by explaining the place-resolution sequence and the explicit re-call option with allow_new_place: true. It does not add detail on date/time defaults or title fallback beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Adds a stop to a Wanderlog trip's journal (travelogue)') and clarifies that a stop pins a place with date/time plus optional text appearing in the journal timeline. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like wanderlog_add_note and wanderlog_add_place.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: try to reuse an existing trip place, otherwise the tool prompts to use wanderlog_add_place or to re-call with allow_new_place: true. That is a clear when-to-use branch with a named alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with wanderlog_edit_journal or explain when to journal versus add a note, leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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