content_planner_generate_content_plan_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions generating a plan but does not disclose if the tool writes to a database, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For a generation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key output (content calendar) and qualifiers (SEO/AEO, schedule, rationale). No unnecessary words.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how the plan is returned (despite output_variable_name), what the plan includes beyond a calendar, or how parameters interact. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool 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 description coverage is only 43%, leaving many parameters without explanations. The description adds minimal value: it hints that 'optimization_focus' relates to SEO/AEO but does not clarify other parameters like planning_period, publishing_capacity, or brand_voice. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool generates a content calendar with article ideas mapped to SEO/AEO opportunities, a publishing schedule, and strategic rationale. This distinguishes it from siblings like content_creator_generate_article_action (single article) and content_audit_generate_audit_action (audit) by specifying the output is a calendar and 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 implies the tool is used for planning a content calendar, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as content_audit or content_creator. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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