set_campaign_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It fully discloses that this is a destructive operation (deletes existing DayTime criterions), that it returns a draft (not directly applied), and details the mid-apply failure mode including what error payload is returned. It also mentions the verification date and the retry behavior. This is excellent disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence adds critical value: the core behavior is front-loaded, the constraints are stated clearly, and the failure-recovery detail is essential. The verification note is extra but provides credibility. No fluff exists; each line earns its place.

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 complexity, destructiveness, and the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the required week shape, the destructive delete-then-add behavior, the return value (a draft), the mandatory follow-up with confirm_and_apply, and the failure reconciliation procedure. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it explains the week parameter as '7 dicts {day, from_hour, to_hour}' and the 0-23 hour clock semantics, including an example (to_hour=22 serves until 22:00). It also implicitly clarifies that campaign_id identifies the campaign whose schedule is replaced. This fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 'REPLACE a campaign's ad schedule', specifying the exact verb and resource. It further clarifies the operation by stating 'Deletes existing DayTime criterions then adds the new set', which distinguishes it from any other ad-schedule tool. The inclusion of 'apply with confirm_and_apply' clarifies the workflow context. This is unambiguous and fully differentiates from siblings.

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 explicit usage guidance: it mandates the week must cover all 7 days, explains the consequence of a partial week ('silently narrows delivery'), and instructs to apply with confirm_and_apply. It also gives detailed failure-recovery instructions, telling the agent to reconcile state before retrying. This is comprehensive guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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