wanderlog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a section automatically if needed and describes the return format ('confirmation with the resolved hotel name and the booking window'). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are needed, or potential error conditions.

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 perfectly sized at three sentences, each earning its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral context (automatic section creation), and concludes with return value information. Zero waste or redundancy.

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 4-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the core functionality, automatic section creation, and return format. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating this is a write operation and mentioning any prerequisites or constraints beyond what's in the parameter schemas.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the parameters indirectly ('with check-in and check-out dates') but provides no new information about their usage or meaning.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Adds a hotel booking'), target resource ('to a Wanderlog trip'), and scope ('with check-in and check-out dates'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wanderlog_add_place or wanderlog_add_expense by focusing specifically on hotel bookings rather than generic items.

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 description provides clear context about when to use this tool - specifically for adding hotel bookings to trips. It mentions automatic creation of a 'Hotels and lodging' section if needed, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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