Plan schedule → bulk-upload CSV

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description goes well beyond them: local-to-UTC conversion, board interleaving, per-row validation against Pinterest bulk-upload rules, the exact CSV header, and the ≤200-row / 14-day-per-file splitting constraint. These are real behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the 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?

It is a single dense sentence, but the primary action is front-loaded and every clause carries information (conversion, validation, output format, file-splitting limits). The run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a short multi-sentence form would.

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 tool with no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the return shape (CSV header, row cap, 14-day window) and the core transformation logic well. It omits what happens when validation fails or how errors/partial results are surfaced, which is the main remaining 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining what start_date, pins_per_day, times and timezone jointly produce (pins spread over days/time slots, local time converted to UTC) and by enumerating the CSV columns that map to pin fields such as Thumbnail and Publish date. It still does not clarify the optional 'now' override or failure semantics for individual pin fields.

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 names a specific verb (spread/plan) and resource (pins over days/time slots) and states the concrete output (ready-to-upload CSV text). It is clearly distinct from siblings like write_pin_copy or suggest_boards, which do not produce scheduling artifacts.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'return ready-to-upload CSV text' signals this is the pre-upload planning step, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over write_pin_copy or what prerequisites (e.g. a prior suggest_boards call) apply. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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