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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action is non-destructive and idempotent: 'Calling this twice with the same scripts is safe; duplicates are skipped.' It also mentions the persistence: 'it shows up in the app, on dailystudio.app/plan, and stays there.' It does not mention any failure modes or side effects, but given the annotations provide no hints, this is still strong coverage. A minor deduction for not explicitly stating that it modifies the plan but that is implied.

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 three sentences that open with the action, then provide usage context, a warning about idempotency, and a comparison to an alternative. Every sentence contributes meaning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and scannable. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and the annotations are all false, the description must explain what happens. It covers the outcome (scripts appear in the plan), the idempotency (duplicates skipped), the prerequisite (connected account), and the alternative (teleprompter). It does not describe what a successful response looks like, but since there is no output schema, that is acceptable. The complexity is moderate (2 params, nested array), and the description is thorough. A slight deduction for not specifying error cases (e.g., what if account not connected?) but that is optional.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning to the parameters: 'collection' is explained as 'Optional name for this batch as a group — a topic, a series, or what the week is about. The scripts show up grouped under it... which is how somebody finds them again later.' It also clarifies the broader purpose of 'scripts' as ordered and dated. This adds value beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, justifying a slight above-baseline score.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Put finished scripts into the user's Daily Studio content plan, each with the day it should go out.' It uses a specific verb ('Put'), specifies the resource ('Daily Studio content plan'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool: 'To record something immediately, use send_script_to_teleprompter instead — that is a delivery, this is a plan.' The contrast between planning and delivery is clear.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user asks you to PLAN — a week, a month, a series — rather than to hand them something to record right now.' It also states the when-not: 'To record something immediately, use send_script_to_teleprompter instead.' It mentions prerequisites: 'Requires a connected Daily Studio account with the plan turned on.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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