close_week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well: declares that a week already closed is not overwritten unless force=True, explains the snapshot is persisted as injectable history, and notes it keys by ISO week. This is non-obvious stateful behavior (idempotency/locking semantics) that the schema alone could not convey. Slight gap: it doesn't describe what the return/output looks like, but an output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste. The front-loaded opening sentence states purpose immediately, and the second sentence explains the mechanism, with the third handling the overwrite edge case. Efficient and well-ordered.

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 7-parameter stateful mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, how persistence works, the ISO-week keying, and the force/overwrite semantics. With a 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, this is quite complete. Minor gap: no explicit statement that this is a mutating/state-changing operation or what happens on error, but the overwrite language strongly implies mutation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the week keying ('keyed by ISO week') and the force overwrite semantics, which enrich the schema descriptions for week and force. However, it doesn't add meaning to the metric parameters (clients, roadmap, done, urgent, notes) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'close the week' plus 'tech dashboard by saving a snapshot' is specific and describes the resource and action clearly. It distinguishes itself from siblings (all the get_/create_/search_ commitment and decision tools) by describing a dashboard-specific week-closing action with snapshot persistence and ISO-week keying.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is used (at week close to save a snapshot) and what it produces (persists history so next week's view knows where this one ended). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the domain separation reasonably clear since no other tool approximates week-closing on the dashboard.

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