set_structured_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the endpoint, auth requirement, the publish-for-visibility behavior, concrete limits (100 modules, 5000 versions), and enumerated 400 error codes. It stops short of describing idempotency, overwrite semantics for existing content, or response shape.

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?

Header-delimited sections are front-loaded and scannable, with the core action first and operational details after. It runs a bit long and some lines (e.g. restating auth) could be trimmed, but nothing is wasteful enough to hurt.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior, and it does cover endpoint, auth, limits, error cases, and content model. It omits return value expectations and any guidance on version handling beyond the discontinuity error, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the terse schema descriptions: module types (text/image/video), widget types (agenda/faqs), and the listing vs digital_content purpose values. That materially helps an agent construct the payload.

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 ('Set structured content for event (create/update)') and clarifies what structured content actually is (modules + widgets). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_structured_content without opening the schema.

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 by the create/update framing and the note that publish=true is needed for public visibility, but it never explicitly states when to call this versus get_structured_content or which scenarios warrant update vs create. The module/widget/purpose breakdown gives useful context but no clear 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.