set_weekly_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'replace' (implying destructive overwrite) and the activation step, but it contradicts the schema's enabled parameter default of true. The description implies the schedule is not active after setting, yet the schema says enabled defaults to true, creating confusion about actual behavior.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing key structural details and a follow-up action. The inline dayConfigs syntax is slightly redundant with the schema but helpful for quick understanding without being overly verbose.

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 tool with six parameters and nested objects, the description covers the core purpose and the critical activation dependency. However, it omits the role of the enabled parameter (which defaults to true and might make the enable call unnecessary) and doesn't address potential side effects of replacing an existing schedule. The schema fills many gaps, but the behavioral ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds inline structure for dayConfigs and lists valid mediums, but this largely duplicates the schema's own descriptions. It doesn't meaningfully explain other parameters like leadTimeDays, timezone, or voiceProfile beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Create or replace the weekly content schedule for the active brand,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that activation happens via enable_weekly_schedule, making its role 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 gives clear usage context: it's for creating or replacing a schedule, and it explicitly says to call enable_weekly_schedule afterward to activate it. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like get/delete, but the activation instruction provides actionable guidance.

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