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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it is a partial update (only supplied fields change) and an empty string erases a stored answer — an important data-loss detail not implied by destructiveHint=false. It still says nothing about what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the update semantics, then the precondition. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or the title.

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 five-parameter partial-update tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description covers the action, the merge semantics, the clearing behavior and the existence precondition. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the response, which matters slightly more here because there is no output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five fields (next, worked, blocked, user_notes, week_start) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add meaning beyond the schema by explaining the omitted-versus-empty-string semantics that govern every optional 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?

States a specific verb and resource: writing one's notes and reflection on a given week's review ("Écrire ses notes et sa réflexion sur le bilan d'une semaine"). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-side sibling dandori_get_weekly_review without naming it, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 a concrete precondition — the review must already exist because it is generated weekly — which tells the agent when this call will fail and that creation is not its job. It does not name an alternative tool for reading the review or for creating one, so routing is left partly implicit.

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