write_day_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the rotation-pin lifecycle, the 'rest' pause behavior, and the openGym merge/conflict-resolution rule. It stops short of stating auth requirements or the response shape, but the added behavioral depth is substantial and consistent with the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the remainder is a dense semicolon-chained wall of edge-case rules. Much of the rotation and openGym merge detail is hard to parse and could be trimmed or deferred to a linked doc.

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 two-param write tool, the description covers precedence with the weekly plan, rotation-round interaction, and sync merge behavior thoroughly. Since no output schema exists, the absence of any note on the return/confirmation is a minor gap, but the behavioral coverage is strong.

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 100%, so both date and plan are already documented, including the routine/rest/null union. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each plan value does under rotation rounds and merge semantics, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Override the plan for one date.' It also names the fallback ('null to go back to the weekly plan'), implicitly distinguishing it from write_week_plan. However, it never explicitly names a sibling tool, so routing relies on inference from the weekly-plan reference.

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?

It gives rich conditional guidance: which value to pass for a routine vs 'rest' vs null, and how those choices behave while a rotation round runs. This is strong context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or a direct pointer to write_week_plan / write_rotation as alternatives.

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