set_week_remarks

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Set' indicating mutation but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing remarks, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The term 'free-text' suggests no validation but is minimal.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the purpose and constraints, earning its place efficiently.

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 simple setter tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and the meaning of parameters. However, it could mention the expected return (e.g., success status) and any prerequisites.

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 50% (only date described). The description adds context by calling the text 'free-text remarks' and clarifying that the date should be for the containing week. However, it does not explain the text parameter's length limits or formatting.

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 identifies the verb 'Set', the resource 'free-text remarks for the week', and the context 'containing the given date'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_week (read) and set_day_status (day-level) by specifying week-level remarks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for writing remarks, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with sibling tools like add_activity or set_day_status.

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