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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds value beyond them by explaining what the destructive consequence actually is: it resizes the pitch report's 90-day content sequence. It also discloses read-back via get_project.postsPerWeek. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first front-loads the core action and range, the second states the downstream effect and verification path. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is set, the valid range, the behavioral consequence on the pitch report, and how to verify the value afterward. Nothing essential is missing.

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 explains postsPerWeek's semantics ('how many articles per week the operator actually publishes' plus the 1-14 range) and its downstream meaning (sizing the sequence). projectId is left unexplained, but it is a self-evident UUID identifier implied by the get_project reference; the main meaningful parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a clear resource (posting cadence / posts per week), and the value range (1-14). It distinguishes itself from sibling setters like set_competitor_importance and set_excluded_terms, which target different resources, so an agent can select it without opening 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?

The description provides clear context on when this matters — it sizes the pitch report's 90-day content sequence — and names the verification path via get_project.postsPerWeek. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., where cadence is initially configured), so it falls just short of explicit routing.

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