set_auto_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Premium plan requirement (authentication/access level) and how auto-scheduled posts are queued, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover other important behavioral aspects like error conditions, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens when updating existing schedules.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining the queuing behavior, and noting the Premium requirement. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and some behavioral aspects (queuing, Premium requirement), but doesn't address important details like response format, error handling, or how this interacts with sibling tools like 'create_post' that might reference these schedules. The description is adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'predefined times and days' which aligns with the 'schedule' and 'daysOfWeek' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create or update an auto-posting schedule with predefined times and days.' It specifies the verb ('create or update') and resource ('auto-posting schedule'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_auto_schedules' or 'delete_auto_schedule' beyond mentioning the schedule creation/update functionality.

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 some usage context: 'Posts created with autoSchedule enabled will be queued to the next available time slot' and 'Requires Premium plan.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_post' (which might reference schedules) or when not to use it. The 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.