Set weekly objectives

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses default behavior for week_start but does not state whether the tool overwrites existing objectives, if it is destructive, or any side effects. Lacks information on execution behavior.

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?

Description is concise at one sentence plus a default note. Information is front-loaded but could be more structured with explicit formatting.

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?

Provided context is adequate for a simple setter tool: identifies number of objectives and default. However, lacks information about success/failure responses, prerequisites, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'save_plan'.

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 coverage is 0%; description adds meaning by explaining objectives should be short outcome statements or objects with {text, done}, and week_start defaults to current week anchor. However, does not fully describe the format of week_start or the anyOf structure in objectives.

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?

Clearly describes the action 'Set' and the resource 'week's strategic objectives', specifying a count of 2-4. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_week' (read vs set) and 'plan_day' (week vs day).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_week', 'update_plan', or 'plan_day'. Only mentions a default for week_start, but does not provide context for selection.

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