lb_schedule_set

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details such as replacing existing schedules, regional restrictions for SFB, and lower execution rates outside the US for ATC/PGV, which are not covered by annotations.

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 concise: three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and follows with constraints. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 parameters, no output schema) and annotation coverage (destructive, idempotent), the description adequately explains what the tool does and its constraints. It could optionally mention the return value (e.g., success/failure) but is not strictly necessary.

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 repeats some schema notes (region restrictions) and states the max entries (which is in schema as maxItems). No additional semantic value beyond what schema 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 it sets the full per-day schedule for a Listing Bureau project, replacing any existing schedule. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lb_schedule_get' (retrieval) and implies a contrast with 'lb_schedule_quick_set' (likely less comprehensive).

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 clear context for use: full schedule replacement with up to 365 entries and regional constraints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'lb_schedule_quick_set' or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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