Update a Wanderlog trip's date range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses exactly what is preserved (blocks stay in place), what is created (empty day sections), what is destroyed (day sections out of range), and the default refusal-with-loss-list behavior. Gaps remain around the success return value, reversibility of a forced deletion, and any permission requirements.

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 primary effect, then a clearly labeled SAFETY block, then a scope-exclusion sentence. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact and the paragraphing makes the destructive path scannable.

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 destructive path, the guardrail, content preservation, and section scope well. Minor omissions are what a successful call returns and confirmation that the trip itself must already exist.

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% and the force parameter is already documented in detail in the schema, including its default and refusal semantics. The description reinforces force's purpose but adds no new syntax or format meaning for start_date, end_date, or trip_key beyond what the schema states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Changes the date range of an existing Wanderlog trip.' The following sentences delineate exact scope (per-day sections only), which cleanly separates it from siblings like wanderlog_rename_day, wanderlog_add_section, and wanderlog_update_section.

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 clear operating conditions: it refuses destructive shrinks by default, lists the lost content, and tells the agent to either pass force:true or move content first. It also states the out-of-scope sections (Hotels, Flights, Transit, Places-to-visit), implicitly routing those needs elsewhere, though it never names a specific sibling tool to use instead.

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