fill_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that existing lines are never overwritten, identical entries are skipped (dedup/idempotency), and that dry_run only logs. It omits what the tool returns and how errors/partial writes are handled.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and format, then behavior and safety in short sentences; each sentence carries real information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with nested entries, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers format, safety, idempotency and the dry-run escape hatch. The only real gap is omission of any return-value or error semantics.

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%, and the description compensates for all three parameters: week format is exemplified ('2026-W39'), entries keys are enumerated ('betrieb', 'themen', 'schule'), the one-per-line convention is stated, and dry_run behavior is explained. Nothing about the inputs is left undocumented.

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 ('Trägt ... ein') and resource ('BLok-Woche') and clarifies the ISO-week format with an example. However, it never mentions the sibling collect_week, so the agent gets no help distinguishing write-vs-collect beyond the verbs themselves.

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 gating condition – 'Nur nach ausdrücklicher Freigabe durch den Nutzer aufrufen' – plus a dry_run trial mode, which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it relative to collect_week.

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