wanderlog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: it removes items, handles ambiguous references by returning a numbered list without making changes, and requires re-calling with more specific inputs. This covers key operational traits like mutation effects and error handling, though it doesn't mention permissions or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately following with detailed reference forms and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, and the structure logically flows from general to specific usage scenarios.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with natural-language parsing) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining behavior, reference formats, and ambiguity handling. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what happens on successful removal) and potential error cases beyond ambiguity, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 significant value beyond the schema by detailing supported reference forms (e.g., exact/partial names, role keywords, day filters, ordinal prefixes, combinations) and providing examples of how 'place_ref' works in practice. This enhances understanding of parameter usage, though it doesn't fully explain 'trip_key' beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('removes') and resource ('a place from a Wanderlog trip'), specifying it applies to any block type (place, flight, train, hotel). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wanderlog_add_place' by being the removal counterpart, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to remove items based on natural-language references. It provides clear guidance on when not to use it (when references are ambiguous, as it returns a list without changes) and how to handle alternatives (re-call with more specific filters). This covers both usage context and exclusions effectively.

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