direct_set_time_targeting

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It clearly flags the operation as WRITE and requires allow_write=true, which is critical safety information. It also gives the expected data format for schedule items. However, it omits side effects like whether the existing schedule is replaced or merged, and doesn't mention dry_run 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?

A single, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the write intent and packs format specs into minimal space, making it easy to scan.

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 is complex (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description explains the main payload and write guard but misses dry_run, project semantics, and the working-weekends option, so an agent might not know how to set those or whether the two modes are mutually exclusive.

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 covers only 29% of parameters. The description defines schedule_items (7 strings day,h0..h23), weekend_pct (0-100), and allow_write (must be true), which adds value for those. But campaign_id, dry_run, project (except schema), and consider_working_weekends remain unexplained in the description, leaving a coverage gap.

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 opens with 'WRITE: campaigns.update TimeTargeting', explicitly stating the operation and resource. The 'WRITE' label distinguishes it from read-only siblings like direct_get_time_targeting.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool updates time targeting, with two input modes (schedule_items or weekend_pct). It doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools or mention when not to use, but the write label and API reference make the intended use obvious.

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