direct.hf.set_campaign_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds the vague '(best effort)' note. It does not explain the apply/dry_run semantics, what 'best effort' means operationally, permission needs, or what changes are made to existing schedule settings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a 7-parameter tool, so it does not earn a higher score.

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?

With 7 parameters, 29% schema coverage, a nested time_targeting object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the apply/dry_run behavior and targeting shape needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is a low 29% (only account_id and direct_client_login are documented), so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about apply, dry_run, campaign_id vs campaign_name, or the time_targeting object. It adds zero meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (set) and resource (campaign schedule/time targeting), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling set_campaign_* tools (budget, geo, tracking_params, etc.), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The lone qualifier '(best effort)' hints at reliability but doesn't tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over the other campaign-setting siblings.

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