upsert_punch_day

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: idempotency, parameter constraints (day positive integer, goals privacy rules), module pass-through, return format and error conditions. This is comprehensive.

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 description is long but well-organized using bullet points and sections. It front-loads the core purpose and idempotency, then details parameters. While effective, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, multiple module types, idempotency, privacy constraints), the description is thorough. It references relevant sibling tools, covers error handling, and specifies return values. No gaps identified.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in depth: book_id sourcing, day semantics, goals content constraints, and modules structure with two types and their required fields (items vs qids). It adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: to upsert the full content of a specific day into a check-in book, with idempotency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_punch_days and get_punch_day by focusing on creating/overwriting a day's content.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for creating or updating a full day, including batch corrections), warns against fabricating book_id, and details the two module types with their respective handling. It implies alternatives for viewing or reviewing content.

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