set_weekly_macro_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the default schedule (a write operation) but does not specify whether it overwrites existing schedules, required permissions, or undoability. Given the lack of annotations, this is adequate but could be more explicit about behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear explanation of scope and mechanism. The Args section is well-structured. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics well. It omits details like error handling or valid day enumerations, but these are minor gaps. The output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable.

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 description adds detailed meaning beyond the input schema, which only has titles and types. It explains that template_name refers to saved templates and days can be comma-separated day names or 'all', filling the 0% schema coverage gap entirely.

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 'Set' and resource 'recurring weekly macro schedule' with action 'assigning a template to days.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_macro_targets by specifying it's for a weekly recurring schedule, not daily targets.

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 explains that the tool updates the DEFAULT schedule for all future dates, not a specific date override. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI to differentiate from similar tools.

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