Update a place with notes, times, or both

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a mutation ('updates', 'set or replace'), and on ambiguity it returns a disambiguation list without making changes — a key safety property an agent needs. It does not mention permission/auth requirements or what happens if no place matches at all.

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 action and resource, then constraints, then edge-case behavior — a sensible order. The second sentence ('set practical context, scheduled times, or both in one call') largely restates the first and could be trimmed, but nothing is confusing.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what it changes, the field-combination rule, reference syntax, and the ambiguity return path. Remaining gaps are the not-found case and the relationship to wanderlog_add_note, which are secondary.

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, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: at least one of note/start_time/end_time must be supplied even though only trip_key and place are required. It also reinforces natural-language place resolution, which is the least obvious parameter behavior.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (updates), resource (an existing place in a Wanderlog trip), and the exact fields it can set (inline note, start/end time, or both). 'Use this to enrich places that were already added' implicitly separates it from wanderlog_add_place, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 clear context (enrich already-added places; set context, times, or both in one call), a hard precondition ('at least one of note, start_time, or end_time must be provided'), and points to wanderlog_remove_place for the place-reference syntax. It stops short of explicit exclusions, notably how it relates to the sibling wanderlog_add_note or where to go when the place doesn't exist yet.

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