maps_set_recommended_travel_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses postconditions: verifies the exact Best/おすすめ radio and unchanged resolved endpoints, drops the stale URL action, and preserves the current directions view. It also indicates failure behavior for mismatched or non-transit requests.

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 description is dense but efficient: three sentences front-load the primary action, then add necessary conditions and behavioral outcomes. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 specialized UI radio-selector with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, preconditions, failure cases, and side effects well. It does not mention sibling alternatives, but the bounded scope makes the description largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that expectedOrigin and expectedDestination must match the active maps_directions request, which is the key semantic constraint. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of origin/destination values beyond this matching requirement.

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 description clearly states a specific action: selecting Google Maps' live-observed Recommended/Best travel-mode radio for a fresh simple transit directions request. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like maps_set_travel_mode by scoping to the Recommended/Best radio and explicitly failing on non-transit requests.

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 description gives concrete usage conditions: expectedOrigin and expectedDestination must match the active maps_directions request, and non-transit or request-with-omitted-features scenarios fail closed. It also notes the Interactive Assist prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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