apply_month

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: incremental per-week persistence, partial-failure containment ('earlier weeks stay saved and stoppedAt names the failed week'), read-back verification, and the committing nature of the call. The notable gap is whether existing entries are overwritten or only empty cells are filled — a critical behavior for a write 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?

Front-loaded with the action and save model, then alternatives, then the return/failure shape, then the human-review warning. The inline return-shape sentence is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema; slightly long overall but no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description supplies the return structure, failure semantics, verification results, and the pre-call human checkpoint — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely and interpret the outcome.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds selection guidance the schema lacks — entriesFile is the draft_month draft and is preferred, inline entries are for 'a few working days'. It does not expand on verify's cost or the per-week grouping semantics, so it stays above but not far above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fill and SAVE eHour timesheet entries for the configured project') plus the unit of work ('one working day per entry') and the save strategy ('saves per week'). An agent can distinguish it from draft_month (drafting) and verify_entries (read-only check) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to pass entriesFile (the draft_month file) rather than inline entries, and instructs to review entries with the user before calling because it commits. It never names verify_entries as the non-committing alternative, so the when-not-to-commit path is only implied through 'review with the user'.

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