lemonade_run_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals atomicity, that it captures visible results, returns the next decision state, and that expected_career_day prevents accidental duplicate execution after a timeout. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond 'start and skip', permissions needed, or timeout behavior details, leaving some gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause contributes meaning—atomicity, result capture, decision state, and the idempotency guard. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, atomicity, result capture, return state, and duplicate-execution protection. It omits explicit timeout_ms behavior and return format details, but these are not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains expected_career_day as a guard against duplicate execution, which adds value beyond the schema, but it does not mention timeout_ms or its semantics at all. Therefore, partial compensation only.

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+resource: 'Atomically start and skip the configured day, capture its visible results, and return the next decision state.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like lemonade_start_day and lemonade_wait_for_day_end by emphasizing the atomic skip and the return of a decision state, not just starting or waiting.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to atomically start and skip a day, capture results, and receive the next decision state in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives like lemonade_start_day + lemonade_wait_for_day_end or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance of a 5.

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