patch_w_company_scheduler

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 states the tool 'updates' a scheduler, implying a mutating operation, but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what exactly gets updated. It also does not mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description merely describes how to structure the request, not the operational behavior.

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 brief, with no redundant language. The only minor flaw is the awkward phrasing 'Update scheduler Calls `PATCH /w/company/scheduler`' where the capitalization of 'Calls' and lack of a comma makes it slightly awkward, but it is still compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes to the utility.

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 description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke this tool. It does not explain what the body payload should contain, what route IDs are needed, or how filters/pagination should be formatted. While an output schema exists崗, the description does not provide enough context about the resource's data structure or the effect of the update. Given the presence of siblings like post_w_company_schedulerainer, the absence of any specifics leaves the agent guessing.

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 provides no descriptions for any of the four parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds useful context by mapping generic containers to HTTP concepts: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers, and payload in body. However, it does not specify what fields the body should contain or what path parameters are expected, leaving significant ambiguity. The description adds some value but not enough to fully clarify the parameters.

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 action 'Update scheduler' and identifies the resource as a scheduler under the company context, differentiating it from sibling tools like post_w_company_scheduler (create) and delete_d_company_scheduler_id (delete). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other update-type tools, relying on the resource name to convey specificity. Overall, the verb and resource are clear enough.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this is for modifying an existing scheduler, nor does it mention when to use post_w_company_scheduler or delete. The parameter placement instructions are not usage guidelines; they are about request construction. There are no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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