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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it enqueues a ~90s build and returns the artifact immediately, it is idempotent per week, and it produces drafts that are not published until approved. This is comprehensive and adds value beyond the name and schema.

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, about four sentences, each adding essential information: trigger condition, direct call instruction, async behavior, idempotency and alternative, and draft status. It is front-loaded with the usage trigger and avoids 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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects (async, idempotent, drafts) but omits any explanation of the 'feedback' parameter and does not describe the structure or format of the returned week artifact. Given there is no output schema, the agent may not know how to interpret the artifact. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites like whether autopilot needs to be enabled, though the instruction to call directly mitigates that. Overall, mostly adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema has one parameter 'feedback' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the 'feedback' parameter at all, so the agent has no guidance on what to pass. The name suggests providing feedback, but that is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: generate this week's content, and differentiates from siblings by clarifying it returns a draft and that adjust is for changes. It also says to call directly without reading status, distinguishing it from status-related tools. This is clear and specific.

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 states when to use it (user asks to generate/create/make/plan the week) and when not to (use adjust to change an existing week). It also advises calling directly without reading status first, giving clear procedural guidance. It implicitly contrasts with approval and status tools.

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