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 delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It explains content preservation logic ('Preserves content on days that remain...'), safety mechanisms ('refuses by default and returns a list of the content that would be lost'), override behavior with force parameter, and scope limitations regarding other trip sections.

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 sections: core functionality, safety behavior, and scope limitations. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with significant behavioral complexity.

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 provides complete context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, safety considerations, parameter implications, and limitations. The behavioral transparency section compensates for the lack of structured annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the consequences of the force parameter ('allows the update even when it would delete days that currently contain places') and clarifies that days are added/removed based on date range changes, providing valuable semantic 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 ('Changes the date range'), target resource ('existing Wanderlog trip'), and scope ('only the per-day sections are added/removed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wanderlog_add_hotel or wanderlog_remove_place by specifying it only affects day sections, not other trip components.

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 vs alternatives: it states 'Does not affect the Hotels, Flights, Transit, or Places-to-visit sections', implying those require different tools. It also gives clear prerequisites: 'move the content to other days first' before using force parameter.

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