Scheduler settings

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is not read-only, so 'patch' adds a slightly more specific behavioral trait. The parenthetical note about webhook_url being a Claude/ChatGPT/AdvisorPPC callback is useful context. However, the description does not disclose whether patching is a partial merge or full replacement, nor what the response or side effects look like.

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 short and front-loaded with the key action, which is good. But the awkward 'digest' insertion and unclear comma structure make the field list harder to parse. It is concise but not cleanly structured.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of return values or patch behavior. Because all parameters are optional, an agent cannot tell whether omitting a field means 'leave unchanged' or 'reset to default,' and the tool's actual response format is unspecified. This is not complete enough for a get/patch tool with these siblings.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mostly lists property names without adding meaning; only webhook_url receives a clarifying callback note. tick_ms, timezone, and public_url remain semantically opaque, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair, 'Get or patch' scheduler settings, and names the specific fields involved. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools x_ads_scheduler_status and x_ads_scheduler_setup, and the stray word 'digest' introduces ambiguity about the field list.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling scheduler tools. The phrase 'Get or patch' implies a read/update use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names.

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