ride_options_set

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. '(dry-run)' hints at non-mutating behavior, but it's unclear whether the tool ever mutates state (the confirm parameter suggests it might), whether it requires auth (the token parameter suggests it does), or what happens to existing options. This is a significant gap for a mutation-adjacent 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?

At four words, the description is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The parenthetical '(dry-run)' is the only substantive content, and it's ambiguous.

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 3-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a description that omits auth requirements, the dry-run/confirm workflow, and the meaning of 'disabilities'. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is present.

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 3 parameters (token, confirm, disabilities). The description mentions none of them, so an agent must infer that 'token' is auth, 'confirm' gates a dry-run application, and 'disabilities' is a string encoding accessibility preferences. Zero compensation for a 0% coverage schema.

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 'Edit ride options (dry-run)' states a verb (edit) and resource (ride options), which is slightly better than a tautology, but the '(dry-run)' qualifier is ambiguous — it's unclear whether this tool actually applies changes or just previews them. Given a sibling named ride_options_quote exists, the distinction between 'edit', 'quote', and the dry-run flag is muddled.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus ride_options_quote or other ride_* siblings is provided. The '(dry-run)' hint implies a preview workflow, but the description never states that this is for validation before applying changes, nor does it reference the confirm parameter's role in that workflow.

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