wanderlog-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides valuable behavioral context: it explains that updates can include notes or times, mentions the natural-language resolution with disambiguation behavior, and states that changes require at least one update field. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, permissions, or mutation side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and constraints in clear, efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and key behaviors like disambiguation. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be helpful given the complexity of natural-language place resolution.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as hinting at the purpose of 'note' ('Practical context: transit, tips, timing, what to see') and referencing sibling syntax, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Updates an existing place'), resource ('in a Wanderlog trip'), and scope ('with an inline note, start/end time, or both'). It distinguishes from siblings like wanderlog_add_place (adds new) and wanderlog_remove_place (removes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to enrich places that were already added' clarifies when to use versus alternatives like wanderlog_add_place for new places. It also specifies prerequisites ('At least one of note, start_time, or end_time must be provided') and references sibling wanderlog_remove_place for context.

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