add_activity

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that empty rows are reused and that location/presence can be optionally set. However, it does not explain what happens if the date already has a full row, whether the activity is appended, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data). More detail on mutation behavior and error states would improve transparency.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences: purpose, key behavior (row reuse), and additional capabilities. No redundant words or filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or confirms on success. It does not mention return values, error handling, or side effects beyond adding an entry. For a simple add operation, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about confirmation or error states. A brief note on expected response (e.g., 'Returns the created activity entry ID') would make it more complete.

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 context about row reuse and optional location/presence setting, but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters (e.g., the format of 'hours' or the meaning of enum values) beyond what the schema already provides. The added value is marginal.

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 action: 'Add a new Berichtsheft activity entry for a specific day.' It also explains row reuse, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_week (read-only) and set_day_status (status change). The verb 'add' plus specific resource 'activity entry' leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies usage context (adding activity entries) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_day_status or set_department. For instance, it doesn't clarify that add_activity is for daily tasks while set_day_status handles overall attendance. The mention of optionally setting location/presence could cause confusion with set_day_status.

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