run_weekly_schedule_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool 'immediately queues posts' and 'Returns postsCreated count', indicating a mutating action with a return value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., an enabled schedule), idempotency, or potential side effects, which prevents a higher score.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action, includes a required format instruction, and ends with a relevant return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.

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's immediate purpose is clear, but the description lacks context about the weekly schedule system as a whole, such as whether a schedule must be configured first or what happens if no schedule exists. Given the sibling tools, a brief mention of prerequisites or expected preconditions would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the date format and mentions the date concept, but the schema already provides both parameter descriptions including the brandId default. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verb 'Trigger' and identifies the resource ('smart-week content generation engine') with a scope ('for a specific date'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling schedule-management tools like enable_weekly_schedule and set_weekly_schedule by focusing on execution rather than configuration.

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 a clear usage context: it triggers generation for a specific date and mentions the immediate queueing behavior. It also includes a formatting instruction ('Use YYYY-MM-DD format'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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