dawarich_recalculate

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

The description adds one behavioral detail ('Defaults to dry-run'), but with no annotations, the full burden falls on the description. It does not disclose potential side effects, whether changes are permanent, or what 'supported' recalculation means operationally.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. However, its brevity sacrifices essential details that would help an agent. It is concise but under-specified, earning a mid-range score.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description leaves major gaps for a tool that likely modifies data. It does not explain what kinds of recalculations are supported, the meaning of dry_run in practice, or the expected workflow. This is insufficient for a tool with two parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'kind' parameter or list possible values. It only repeats the dry_run default, which is already encoded in the schema. The term 'supported' implies constraints but offers no specifics.

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 uses a specific verb ('queue') and resource ('Dawarich recalculations'), but 'supported' is vague and does not specify what kinds of recalculations are available. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to fully distinguish the tool's scope.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. The only hint is the dry-run default, which implies testing but is not explicitly stated as a use case.

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