Add a place 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 place is matched against Google Places near the trip's destination, that the top match wins, that place_id bypasses search and takes precedence, and that the response confirms the resolved name and target location. It does not cover auth, failure modes when no match is found, or mutation side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then organized into a fallback paragraph and a 'PREFERRED' usage paragraph. It is somewhat long and restates some note/place_id semantics already in the schema, but every section contributes routing or behavioral information rather than filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the two ways to identify a place, when to use each, how notes and times are attached, and what the confirmation contains. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: the precedence rule between 'place' and 'place_id', the 'place' is required unless place_id is given' constraint, the recommendation to prefer 'note' over a separate add_note call, and the pairing of start_time with end_time.

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 ('Adds a place to a Wanderlog trip') plus the scope detail that distinguishes outcomes: inserted into a specific day or the general 'Places to visit' list. It also names the sibling it complements (wanderlog_search_places), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit fallback path when the free-text match is wrong (call wanderlog_search_places with response_format: 'detailed', then pass place_id). It also draws a clear boundary against wanderlog_add_note — use 'note' on this tool for place-attached context, standalone wanderlog_add_note only for freestanding commentary between places.

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