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

The description discloses the critical ordering constraint: weights set after schedule generation are stored but do not air. It also explains that weights are relative, which is non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations. This adds significant transparency about side effects and timing.

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 main purpose, followed by a clearly marked 'IMPORTANT ORDERING' note. Every sentence provides crucial information without filler. It's concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Despite no output schema and limited sibling context, the description covers the main functionality, the key timing pitfall, and the relative weight behavior. It gives enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly, including how to recover from the ordering gotcha. No significant gaps remain.

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 description explains the weight parameter in detail (range, default, 0 meaning, relative nature), which is not fully covered by the schema. It also mentions title and tags as optional. However, it doesn't add detail for the tags parameter's special sequencing behavior (already in schema) or title semantics, so it doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage, but weight is well covered.

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 function: 'Change how often a video plays (weight 0-10, default 5; 0 removes it from rotation entirely), and optionally its title or tags.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like regenerate_schedule or set_schedule_rules by focusing on per-asset weight and metadata updates.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: weights only affect airtime when the schedule is (re)generated, and it tells the user to either set weight at import time or call regenerate_schedule afterwards. This directly addresses alternative workflows and prevents misuse.

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