content_month_plan

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that computation is local/server-side, rule-based with no AI model, stateless, free of payment, and that nothing is written to any calendar — the .ics is returned as text for the caller to import. The privacy constraint (no personal data) is also surfaced. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false given the explicit "stateless / nothing is written" claim, but the description is generous with behavior the annotations do not encode.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and there is little pure filler, but the description is a run-on chain of clauses with a 15-field return list dumped inline. Since no output schema exists the return list has value, but it could be structured far more digestibly (grouped constraints vs. returns vs. caveats) rather than strung into one paragraph.

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 22-parameter generative tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is produced, the return field inventory, the language options, the stateless/local/no-AI nature, the privacy constraint, and the fact that no calendar is modified. What is missing is guidance on interacting with the sibling planners and on the many timing/scheduling knobs that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 only 27% across 22 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does at a conceptual level: periods (from/to), topics (categories/mix_counts as "counts"), weekdays, holidays per region, already booked dates and language are all referenced. Many operational parameters — seed, phase_offsets, start_time, break_minutes, lunch_minutes, max_day_minutes, min_shoot_lead_days, avoid_weekends — get no mention at all, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and artifact (plan a content month) with concrete scope: up to 30 posts, publish dates, linked production dates, shoot days, holidays, conflicts and an .ics export. That is enough to separate it from siblings like shoot_day_plan, video_project_plan and content_plan_shift by granularity and output. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Send periods, counts, weekdays and your already booked dates only" gives some input-side guidance, and "Topics are suggestions from built-in recipes, not a content strategy" sets expectations about output quality. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the closely related planning tools (shoot_day_plan, content_plan_shift, video_project_plan). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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