Create a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the trip is created empty, that day sections are auto-generated per day in the range, and that the new trip key is returned for subsequent calls. It omits auth/permission requirements, what happens when geo resolution picks a wrong city, and whether creation is idempotent — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 first and last sentences are well front-loaded and earn their place, but the middle is a multi-step itinerary-building tutorial for four other tools rather than guidance about this tool. It is useful behavioral shaping, yet disproportionate to a five-parameter create call and buries the return-value note at the end.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, resulting structure, and the return value (trip key), while the schema fully covers parameters. Remaining gaps are authorization and failure/ambiguity handling, which keep it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so destination, dates, title, and privacy are already fully documented including the geo-autocomplete resolution behavior. The description only restates destination and date range and adds nothing about title or privacy, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Creates a new Wanderlog trip') scoped to destination and date range, and further specifies the resulting state: an empty trip with one pre-generated day section per day. That level of specificity makes it unambiguous against read-oriented siblings like wanderlog_list_trips and wanderlog_get_trip.

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?

Provides strong downstream guidance about which tools to chain after creation (add_place, add_note, add_hotel, add_checklist) and why notes matter. It does not, however, state preconditions or when-not-to-use (e.g. that an existing trip should be reused rather than a duplicate created), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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