enable_weekly_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating 'without changing its configuration' and requiring prior creation, but it does not mention idempotency, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. This leaves gaps, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds essential context (prerequisite and non-configuration). No wasteful 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 simple state-change tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and key constraint. It could be more explicit about what enabling does functionally, but the sibling set and simple schema make the description reasonably 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, and brandId is clearly described ('defaults to active brand'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is justified.

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's function ('Enable the weekly content schedule') and specifies that it does not change configuration, distinguishing it from set_weekly_schedule. The verb 'Enable' plus the resource 'weekly content schedule' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite ('must already be created with set_weekly_schedule') and an implicit when-not (do not use if you want to change config; use set_weekly_schedule instead). This effectively guides the agent on when to use this tool versus the primary sibling.

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