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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context absent from annotations: plan creation is free, channel ids create DRAFT posts in the calendar with nothing published, angles are written first when the audience has none, and the operation takes about a minute. This is exactly the kind of side-effect, cost, and timing disclosure that helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then structured by action. It is somewhat dense, but every sentence adds useful operational detail and there is no obvious 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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers cost, timing, side effects, prerequisites, action selection, and the handoff to studio_generate, leaving no essential gap for an agent calling this tool.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds cross-parameter meaning: 'channels' accepts platform names and/or channel ids, and channel ids additionally create DRAFT posts; 'cadence' means posts per week; and 'weeks' covers 1–8 weeks. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, though not comprehensively for every parameter.

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 names both verbs and the resource precisely: 'Create or read a content plan: a calendar of posts...' It also explains the two actions ('create' builds a plan; 'get' returns or lists plans), so an agent can distinguish this tool's purpose without inspecting the 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?

It states when to use each action and gives explicit alternatives: use 'create' to build a plan, use 'get' with planId to read one or omit planId to list plans. It also routes the agent to studio_generate for making an individual post and tells it to confirm audience, channels, cadence, and weeks with the user first.

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