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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that new weeks append by default or can be inserted at a position. It does not say whether inserting shifts existing weeks, what an empty new week contains, or what is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key behavior front-loaded — no waste. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it leaves the reader wanting the detail that the schema also lacks.

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?

A 4-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema needs more from the description: what the created week looks like, position bounds/shifting behavior, and what the response returns. Only the placement behavior is addressed.

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 only 25% — only programId is documented (via the schema). The description alludes to 'position' but says nothing about 'name' (required) or 'notes', and gives no ordering/index semantics for position (0-based? 1-based? out-of-range behavior).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Adds a week') and clarifies the default placement ('at the end of a program') with the optional override ('or at position'). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like add_program_day or update_program_week, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., program must exist, ownership), and no mention of alternatives such as update_program_week for modifying an existing week. The only implied usage cue is the append-vs-position note.

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