execute_weekly_plan_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses idempotency ('Idempotent by action_id, safe to retry') and unsupported-platform behavior ('returns a clear not-available message'). It does not detail permissions or irreversibility of the concrete actions, but the examples and confirmation guard give adequate awareness of mutation.

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?

Three sentences carry purpose, examples, idempotency, usage timing, and platform availability. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter execution tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, retry safety, and failure behavior on unsupported platforms. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for an agent to select, invoke, and interpret the likely result.

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 already describes both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that action_id is the idempotency key and that it comes from get_weekly_plan, and by tying confirm to the prerequisite that the merchant has confirmed the action. This goes slightly beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a specific action from the merchant's weekly plan', and gives concrete examples such as publish bundle, run mining job, and archive rule. It is clearly distinct from get_weekly_plan because it performs an action rather than listing the plan.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'AFTER the merchant has confirmed which action from get_weekly_plan they want to run', and gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction: 'do not call preemptively'. It also explains the platform context and what happens on unsupported platforms, which helps the agent decide whether to call it at all.

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