generate_content_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool identifies gaps and emerging keywords, suggests titles based on top video patterns, and organizes content by week with optimal days/times. While it does not mention limitations, data sources, or side effects, these are less critical for a non-destructive generation tool, and the description provides substantial behavioral context.

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 a single but somewhat long sentence that front-loads the primary action and efficiently enumerates key outputs. It avoids redundant wording, though the multiple clauses make it slightly dense, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool produces. It successfully communicates the calendar and its components (gaps, keywords, titles, schedule), but it does not detail the return format, such as whether the output is a list, table, or structured object. Given the tool's complexity, this is a noticeable but not critical gap.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by specifying the 14-30 day range and weekly organization, which aligns with periodDays and postsPerWeek, but it does not offer deeper semantics 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 'Gera um calendário de conteúdo de 14 a 30 dias para o nicho' (generates a content calendar), specifying the verb and resource. It also lists distinct sub-functions (identifying gaps, keywords, titles) that differentiate it from sibling tools like search_trending_topics or detect_content_gaps, showing it produces a consolidated calendar rather than a single analysis.

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 the tool is for content planning by generating a calendar, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative tools or provide exclusions. Sibling tools such as score_best_publish_window and analyze_title_patterns cover individual aspects, but the description does not direct users to choose this tool for a complete calendar, so the usage context is only implied.

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