ride_boarded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements for 'token', no statement of what a real (non-dry-run) call changes, no idempotency or rate-limit notes. The '(dry-run)' hint weakly implies no side effects, but it is too ambiguous to substitute for real disclosure.

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?

Three words with no filler and nothing to trim, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, though it is so terse that it barely qualifies as a description.

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?

A state-changing boarding confirmation with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema is left entirely unexplained. Nothing in the definition tells an agent how to invoke it correctly or what to expect afterward.

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% across three parameters, and the description explains none of them. The relationship between the 'confirm' boolean and the promised 'dry-run' behavior — the most important semantic question here — is left completely undocumented.

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+resource ('Confirm boarding'), which is more than a tautology, but the parenthetical '(dry-run)' muddies what actually happens — it is unclear whether the tool always simulates, or only when the 'confirm' flag is false. It also gives no differentiation from nearby siblings like ride_carpool_accept or ride_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus ride_carpool_accept, ride_track, or any other ride-state tool, nor any prerequisite conditions. The agent must guess the calling context entirely.

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