ads_set_adset_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavior that pacing_type is auto-set to ['day_parting'] unless overridden, and mentions the Meta API requirement. It does not cover error cases or effects of invalid inputs, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and useful.

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 dense but well-structured with bullet-like sections. The main action, format options, aliases, requirements, behavioral note, and example are each clearly separated. No sentences are wasted; every part adds necessary information for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, input format examples, accepted aliases, prerequisites, a behavioral side effect, a removal case, and a full usage example. This is more than sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 provides zero description coverage, leaving the description to fully document the parameters. It explains the schedule object structure in detail (raw Meta format vs friendly format), day aliases, timezone_type default, and the meaning of pacing_type. This exactly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource pair: 'Set day-parting on an ad set'. This distinguishes it from siblings like ads_get_adset_schedule (getter) and other ads mutation tools. The phrase 'with an ergonomic format' further clarifies the tool's specific value proposition.

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 strong contextual guidance including the required LIFETIME budget (with 'Convert first if needed'), the automatic setting of pacing_type, and the special case of passing an empty list to remove dayparting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear. The absence of explicit when-not-to-use constraints keeps this just below a 5.

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