modify_itinerary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that modification happens via natural language, but does not explain whether changes are permanent, whether the itinerary is partially or fully updated, how ambiguous instructions are resolved, or what the tool returns. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not specify return values, error behavior, or how the natural language instructions should be structured, leaving significant gaps for an agent to know what to expect. Sibling tools do not compensate for this.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond restating the parameters; no additional formatting, constraints, or parameter interactions are provided.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('existing itinerary'), and specifies the mechanism ('using natural language instructions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_itinerary and get_itinerary by clearly indicating it targets existing itineraries for modification.

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 phrase 'existing itinerary' implies the tool is not for creating new itineraries, but the description provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when to prefer this tool over save_itinerary or other related tools. Usage is implied rather than clearly delineated.

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