Auto-setup scheduler

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

The description discloses concrete side effects beyond annotations: starts the in-process worker, writes the job store, and returns paste-ready MCP snippets. The added safety note ('Does not invent campaigns or spend') is useful context that complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three dense, clutter-free sentences that front-load the core purpose, then summarize effects and safety boundaries. Every sentence carries unique information, with no redundant or vague language.

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 side-effecting setup action with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return artifact, and supported vendors. It omits details like idempotency, overwrite behavior, and vendor-specific parameter needs, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand 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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, and the description adds some value by mapping the vendor enum to readable names (Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Grok, raw HTTP, AdvisorPPC backend). However, timezone is left undocumented in both schema and description, and no parameter relationships or vendor-specific requirements are explained.

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 states a specific action ('Self-configure the AdvisorPPC scheduler') and enumerates supported vendors, making the core purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself by its setup nature and output (paste-ready MCP snippets), though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling scheduler tools.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to run when setting up or configuring the scheduler for a supported vendor. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or order relative to scheduler_status/settings.

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