disable_weekly_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the non-destructive nature ('without deleting it') and reversibility ('Re-enable later'), which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a simple pause operation, the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words; every word adds value.

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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward action. The description fully explains the purpose and the relation to enable_weekly_schedule, making it complete for its simplicity.

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?

The only parameter (brandId) is fully described in the schema with 'Brand ID (defaults to active brand)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high 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 verb (pause) and the resource (weekly content schedule), and explicitly contrasts with deletion ('without deleting it'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool delete_weekly_schedule.

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 when to use it ('Pause... without deleting it') and names the re-enable alternative (enable_weekly_schedule). However, it does not explicitly mention delete_weekly_schedule as the alternative for permanent removal, though the contrast with deletion is implicit.

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