update_on_call_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action ('Update') without detailing what the update entails (e.g., whether it modifies existing data, requires specific permissions, has side effects like notifications, or returns confirmation). This leaves critical behavioral aspects like mutation impact, authentication needs, and response format unspecified, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence, 'Update a new on-call schedule', which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information, reducing its effectiveness as a standalone description.

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 as an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Update' entails, what data is modified, or what the outcome might be (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool without structured support, the description should provide more behavioral and contextual details to guide the agent effectively.

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 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. However, it does not clarify why there are no parameters (e.g., if the tool updates a default or pre-configured schedule), missing an opportunity to add context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but it could be higher with more explanation.

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 'Update a new on-call schedule' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'update_on_call_schedule' with minimal variation. It does not specify what aspects of the schedule are updated (e.g., shifts, participants, rotations) or clarify the resource scope, making the purpose vague. While it includes a verb ('Update') and resource ('on-call schedule'), it lacks specificity and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' or 'delete_on_call_schedule'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing schedule to update), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' for creation or 'delete_on_call_schedule' for deletion. Without any context or usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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