maps_set_travel_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral details: it rebuilds the official Maps URL instead of exploring the DOM, and it preserves existing waypoints and avoid constraints. However, it does not mention what happens if no active directions request exists, whether the page navigates, or other side effects.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds important context about implementation and preservation of constraints. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation, the target scope (active directions request), the method (URL rebuild), and a critical side-effect (preservation of waypoints/avoid constraints). It could be more complete by addressing the no-active-request case, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 needed to compensate for explaining the mode parameter. It only references 'travel mode' generically and does not add meaning beyond the enum values already listed in the schema. The schema does document allowed values, so this is not a total failure, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and clear resource ('travel mode of the active directions request'), immediately telling the agent what the tool operates on. The phrase 'active directions request' and the distinct focus on travel mode differentiate it from siblings like maps_directions or maps_set_transit_time.

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 implies usage context: it should be used when there is an active directions request whose travel mode needs changing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as maps_set_recommended_travel_mode, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool.

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