configure_publishing_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful behavior: autonomous generation publishes future texts without item-by-item approval and requires separate consent. That is valuable, but it omits reversibility, whether existing schedules are overwritten, and how the 'confirmed' gate interacts with the change.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the consent caveat is appropriately placed second. It is dense but efficient, though the compression borders on cryptic for a 6-parameter tool.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It says nothing about timezone semantics, the meaning of 'enabled' vs 'confirmed', or what the response or side effects look like.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely signals frequency (posts_per_day), time (times), and mode/autonomous behavior, but leaves timezone, enabled, and confirmed — and the exact format of times — unexplained.

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 verb 'Изменить' (change) is paired with concrete settings — frequency, time, and mode — which map to the schedule configuration resource. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the resource ('publishing schedule') explicitly nor distinguishes itself from the sibling pause_publishing.

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?

'после согласования' (after approval) implies a precondition, and the note that autogeneration requires separate consent hints at when it applies. However, it does not say when to use this versus pause_publishing or queue_approved_posts, leaving the routing to inference.

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