Log Travel

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/closed-world profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: soft_pin defaulting to status=possible and staying off cities/map until confirmed, the optional mirror calendar event, the $0.10 cost, and the API-key requirement. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists to cover it.

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-loads the mutation fact and the routing preference before enumerating parameters and edge cases; the compressed, clause-heavy style is efficient though dense. Nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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 12 parameters, an output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers routing, required/optional inputs, special-case semantics, cost, and auth. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing required (city + start_date) and optional fields and explaining the meaning of the kind and confidence enums and mirror_event's role. It omits the date/idempotency_key aliases and request_id, and its 'Required: city + start_date' slightly conflicts with the schema listing only city as required, but overall semantic value is well above the schema alone.

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 (MUTATES trips) plus the optional calendar side effect, so the resource and scope are unambiguous. It explicitly names sibling tools (log_event, log_transaction) it should be preferred over or kept separate from, letting an agent distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 explicit routing: 'Prefer this over free-text log_event for map/history' and 'Zelle/Venmo money belongs in log_transaction — not here.' Both the positive condition and the exclusion are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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