coolify_update_application_scheduled_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and all it provides is a '[WRITE]' marker. It does not state whether this is a partial or full replacement update (i.e., whether omitted optional fields like 'command' or 'frequency' are preserved or cleared), nor anything about permissions, side effects, or the response.

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?

A single short sentence with the mutation marker front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness in service of a complete definition.

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?

Incorrect on my part? Let me restate: given eight parameters, an unannotated mutation path, and no output schema, the definition is thin. It omits partial-update semantics and the discovery step for task_uuid, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and all eight parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — 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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('scheduled task for a Coolify application'), and the '[WRITE]' tag signals mutation. Naming the application context implicitly separates it from coolify_update_service_scheduled_task, but it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling or coolify_create_application_scheduled_task.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create/delete/list scheduled task siblings, and no prerequisite such as needing a task_uuid from coolify_list_application_scheduled_tasks. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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