Update Ride Destination

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating and destructive nature is covered. The description adds limited behavioral context by specifying the ride must be active and that an updated live request is returned, but it does not explain what destructive side effects occur, such as overwriting the prior destination or potential fare impacts.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both clauses earn their place: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return value. This is an appropriate size for a tool with a relatively simple purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description's mention of 'updated live request' gives a basic return expectation, but not the shape or fields. The tool also has a destructiveHint=true annotation and a nested destination object, so an agent would benefit from more context about ride-state prerequisites and the effects of setting a new destination. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds the meaningful constraint that the ride must be active, which refines rideId semantics beyond the schema's 'Ride ID returned by request_ride.' However, it does not elaborate on destination structure or values, relying mostly on the nested schema fields for address, latitude, and longitude.

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 and resource: 'Change the destination of an active Uber ride' and adds the outcome 'return the updated live request.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_ride, complete_ride, and get_ride_details without requiring the reader to inspect 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?

The phrase 'active Uber ride' provides an implied precondition, suggesting this tool is only for changing destinations of rides that are currently active. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for completed/cancelled rides or when to use get_ride_details instead.

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