replace_playlist_item_schedule

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

This adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: omitted windows are lost because this is a full replacement, an empty week_schedules array makes the item always active but does not affect visibility, and times are interpreted in the account timezone, which the API does not expose. This directly supports correct use.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information with no repetition. The destructive full-replacement warning is front-loaded, and the edge cases about empty arrays and timezones are packed into tight, useful notes.

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 description is strong enough that an agent can invoke this tool correctly: it explains the destructive replacement, the retain-all-windows requirement, the empty-array behavior, and weekday/time semantics. Small gaps are that it does not explicitly point to the tool to read the schedule, and time-window boundary cases are not mentioned, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining week_schedules semantics: weekday numbering, HH:MM format, timezone behavior, and empty-array meaning. The item_id parameter is left implicit, but it is a self-explanatory integer identifier, and the description adds enough for the two-parameter schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Replace ALL weekly display windows for an item.' It clearly states the full-replacement semantics and distinguishes itself from visibility-related tools by noting that an empty schedule clears time restrictions, not visibility.

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 gives a concrete workflow: read the existing schedule first, then send all windows that should remain. It also clarifies when an empty array is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_playlist_item_schedule or set_playlist_item_visibility as the alternatives, so the 'when not to use' guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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