fill_w2_income

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Enter' implies a write operation, but it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing W-2 data or appends), authentication requirements, or potential error states. The status note 'Not yet implemented' adds confusion about reliability but is not a behavioral trait.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-informative. The inclusion of '[Phase 2 - Not yet implemented]' adds implementation status rather than usage guidance, reducing its helpfulness for an AI agent. It could be restructured to front-load critical usage info.

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 has 9 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, confirmation of entry, or whether the tool is additive or replaceable. For a complex data-entry tool, the agent needs more context to avoid misuse.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, providing clear definitions for each field (e.g., 'Wages, tips, other compensation (Box 1)'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Enter W-2 wage data,' which specifies the action (enter) and the resource (W-2 wage data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_1099_income, which targets a different form. However, the term 'enter' is somewhat generic and could imply creation or editing, but the context of tax forms clarifies it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fill_1099_income or fill_deductions. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for an existing tax return or session, nor does it specify when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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