set_posting_schedule

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing replace-not-merge semantics, the Pro-tier gating, the required schedule:write permission, and the inheritance side effect of an empty group array. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its replace semantics, each carrying distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 destructive bulk-replace tool this covers scope, prerequisites, and the empty-array edge case. It stops short of saying what happens to already-queued or scheduled posts whose slots are removed, which is the one behavior an agent might still need.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: slots must be the complete list, and an empty array plus groupId has a specific inheritance effect, while omitting groupId targets the global schedule.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the weekly posting queue slots') plus scope ('global schedule or one account group'), which cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_posting_schedule and suggest_schedule.

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?

Explains the call contract clearly: pass the FULL desired list because it replaces the existing one, and an empty array on a group removes the override. It does not explicitly tell the agent to read the current schedule first via get_posting_schedule, so there is a minor gap in when-to-use routing.

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