Auto-setup scheduler

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

The description discloses meaningful side effects: it starts the in-process worker, writes the job store, and returns paste-ready MCP snippets. The line 'Does not invent posts' is a useful constraint beyond the annotations, which only carry false hints.

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 concise sentences front-load purpose and side effects before the clarifying constraint. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

The description provides a solid high-level contract, including side effects and return shape, but omits defaults/behavior for optional parameters and does not clarify whether a no-arg invocation performs a vendor-agnostic default setup. Without an output schema, this is enough to call but not fully complete.

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?

Only public_url and webhook_url have schema descriptions, and the description does not explain the timezone parameter or default behavior when optional fields are omitted. Vendor choices are listed but not tied to parameter semantics, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 names a specific action ('Self-configure the AdvisorPPC scheduler'), enumerates target vendors, and describes visible effects (starts worker, writes job store, returns snippets). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like schedule_create or scheduler_status.

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 this is for initial or automated scheduler setup, but it never states when to prefer it over scheduler_settings, scheduler_status, or schedule_create, nor when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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