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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect: 'Expires the current draft and regenerates a fresh week', which implies a destructive action. It also mentions graceful handling of edge cases (no week, still generating, already approved), which helps set expectations. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose with 'Use when...', then gives the call guidance, the effect, and edge cases in just a few sentences. No filler or redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers when to use the tool, what it does, and edge cases, which is good for a moderate-complexity tool. However, it fails to explain the batchId parameter, which is essential for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the edge-case statement, but the missing parameter documentation makes it incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains 'feedback' via examples ('make it more casual', 'fewer promos') and mentions it is optional (omit for regeneration), but it does not explain 'batchId' at all. The agent cannot infer what batchId refers to from the description, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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: to change/adjust/revise the current autopilot week with feedback or regenerate it from scratch. It specifies the resource (current week) and the action (expires and regenerates), and differentiates itself from the sibling generate_autopilot_week by focusing on the existing week rather than creating a new one.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when the user asks to change or revise the current week with feedback, or to regenerate it without feedback. It also instructs to call directly without reading status first, providing clear guidance on the invocation flow and distinguishing this tool from status-checking alternatives.

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