upsert_manual_flight

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint: false, but the description explicitly warns that 'Omitted fields may clear existing values', which is a destructive update contradicting the annotation. Although the description adds useful context such as write prerequisites and timestamp semantics, the contradiction is a serious behavioral transparency failure.

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 action and then each sentence adds a necessary prerequisite, identifier, schema pointer, disambiguation, or caveat. There is no filler, and the warning about omitted fields is appropriately highlighted.

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 opaque nested input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool: writes-enabled requirement, required local IDs, get_schema pointer, timestamp clarification, and the omitted-fields clearing warning. It does not fully document the complete payload, but that is reasonably delegated to get_schema.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and exposes only an opaque flight object, so the description carries the burden. It lists required local identifiers, disambiguates gateOriginal/Actual and runwayOriginal/Actual as timestamps rather than names, and points to get_schema for remaining fields. It adds substantial meaning, though it does not document every nested field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create/edit a manual flight using a complete ManualFlightChangeAction payload. It also names key required identifiers, so the agent understands the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as apply_changes or other flight mutation tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context by stating 'Requires writes enabled', listing required local identifiers, and directing the agent to get_schema for additional time/equipment/airline fields. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the operational context is clear.

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