gerent365_publish_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect: 'notifica a los empleados activos' (notifies active employees). However, it does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, whether it overwrites an existing published schedule, or any permission requirements, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the important notification side effect. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff 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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the core action and a key side effect. It is missing a little context around the publishing lifecycle (e.g., whether it can be redone, how to verify success via gerent365_get_publish_status), but for a low-complexity tool this is largely sufficient.

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% for the single required parameter 'weekStart', with the description 'Semana a publicar (YYYY-MM-DD)' already conveying the format and purpose. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline without enhancing 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 action: 'Publica el horario de una semana y notifica a los empleados activos' (publishes a week's schedule and notifies active employees). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gerent365_get_schedule, gerent365_assign_shift, and gerent365_copy_week by specifying a publish-and-notify behavior.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist or weekStart must be a particular day), nor does it state when not to use it or point to related tools like gerent365_get_publish_status.

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