scheduled_queries_insert

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (insert/update) and a required permission level. Yet it does not describe response behavior, error conditions, idempotency, or batch effects. The example body adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 starts with a clear summary, but the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Insert or update scheduled queries' followed by 'Insert new scheduled queries or update existing scheduled queries'). The endpoint and example are useful and well-formatted. Overall it is efficient and well-structured for an API reference.

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 tool has moderate complexity with nested objects, but no output schema or annotations. The description provides the endpoint, permission note, and a concrete example, which covers request structure. However, it omits response format or return values, and does not clarify array semantics (e.g., whether multiple items are processed as a batch). These gaps reduce completeness.

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 0% (only one property has a description), so the description must compensate. The included example request body illustrates all required fields (query_definition_name, xql, timeframe, schedule) with concrete values and nested structure, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. However, it does not explain field semantics like units for relativeTime or allowed trigger_type values.

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 function: 'Insert or update scheduled queries'. This uses a specific verb (insert/update) and resource (scheduled queries), and is further clarified by 'Insert new scheduled queries or update existing scheduled queries.' It also provides the endpoint path, distinguishing it from siblings like scheduled_queries_delete and scheduled_queries_list.

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 implies usage by naming the operation and includes a permission prerequisite ('You must have Instance Administrator permissions'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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