Rename a day heading in a Wanderlog trip

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does valuable work by explaining that an empty 'heading' resets to Wanderlog's auto-generated title, but it omits permissions required, what happens if the day doesn't exist or is ambiguous, and whether the original heading is recoverable.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by context and the edge-case behavior. The reset instruction partially duplicates the schema's own 'heading' description, which is minor redundancy rather than waste.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, and the reset edge case. The residual gap is the ambiguous 'heading/subheading' phrasing, which never clarifies whether one call sets both fields or only the heading.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including accepted day formats and the empty-string reset. The description reinforces the empty-string semantics and adds illustrative heading examples, but contributes no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Renames the heading/subheading of a specific day') and grounds it with a concrete example of what day headings look like in the itinerary. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like wanderlog_update_section or wanderlog_delete_section, which also touch itinerary structure, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The sentence 'Use this tool to replace them with more descriptive titles' implies the intended use case, and the empty-string behavior gives a second usage mode (resetting). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for editing other itinerary elements, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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