wanderlog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well at disclosing key behaviors: it explains the place matching logic ('Searches for the place near the trip's destination, picks the best match'), clarifies where the place gets inserted ('either a specific day or the general "Places to visit" list'), describes the note attachment mechanism, and mentions the return format. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear paragraphs: first stating the core operation, then providing usage guidance for parameters, then clarifying when to use alternatives, and finally describing the return. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information, and it's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool with complex sibling relationships.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well: it covers the core operation, parameter usage, sibling differentiation, and return information. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or permission requirements, but given the rich parameter guidance and behavioral context, it's mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the practical use of the note parameter ('transit directions, what to order, booking tips, time guidance'), clarifies the relationship between start_time and end_time, and provides guidance on when to use versus omit parameters. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 verb 'Adds' and resource 'a place to a Wanderlog trip', specifying the exact operation. It distinguishes from siblings like wanderlog_add_note by explaining this tool attaches notes directly to places rather than creating separate note blocks, and from wanderlog_search_places by emphasizing it picks the best match and inserts into the itinerary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states 'PREFERRED: Use the "note" parameter... This is better than a separate wanderlog_add_note call' and specifies 'Use standalone wanderlog_add_note only for freestanding commentary between places.' It also clarifies when to use start_time/end_time parameters and when to omit the day parameter.

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