set_day_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose whether the tool overwrites existing status, if it creates a day entry if missing, or what side effects occur (e.g., impact on existing activities). This leaves an agent uncertain about safe invocation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, missing details on preconditions (e.g., does the day need to exist?) and return values (no output schema) make it incomplete for robust agent use.

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 the parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description paraphrases the schema ('Set the location and/or presence status') without adding new meaning or constraints 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 description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('location and/or presence status for a specific day in the Berichtsheft'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from adding an activity, which is a sibling tool name. This makes the purpose specific and avoids confusion.

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 includes a clear exclusion ('without adding an activity'), which directly contrasts with the sibling 'add_activity'. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'set_department' or 'set_week_remarks', leaving some ambiguity.

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