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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the description carries real weight and delivers: validation against the playbook and seven-day window, refusal-with-reason on failure, a required act key, and the deferred behavior where the daily pass writes the full task later. The success return value is not described.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded, and the timing constraint plus the work_plan alternative follow immediately. It is compact, though some phrasing is dense and 'Say why in plain words; the owner reads it' largely restates the reason parameter's schema description.

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 tool taking a ten-field nested slot object with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, validation, and failure mode well. It leaves open what a successful call returns (an id, the stored slot) and how key uniqueness or later slot_move/slot_drop interact with a created slot.

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 slot fields, the date window, tokens, and forecast. The description adds a little meaning beyond that — the reason is read by the owner in plain words, and an act key is mandatory — but nothing about the nested slot object's field relationships or the optional project parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Put a slot on a later day of the calendar') and pins the scope precisely (after the week ahead, on or before situation.horizon.end). It explicitly names the sibling it is not — a day inside the week ahead takes a full task via work_plan — so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use window and an explicit alternative (work_plan for days inside the week ahead), plus the constraint that entries are checked against the playbook and its seven-day window. It does not mention slot_move or slot_drop, so the rescheduling/removal alternatives are left to inference.

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