post_w_company_update_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is an 'update' via POST, which is already implied by the name. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens if the schedule does not exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then gives parameter placement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not explain what the update entails (overwrite vs merge), what the required payload structure is, or any prerequisites. The schema is unhelpful (all parameters are generic objects), so the description should compensate but fails to provide the necessary context for a safe, correct call.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It does add meaning by stating that path_params holds route IDs, query holds filters/pagination, headers holds required headers, and body holds the payload. However, it remains generic—it does not specify what the payload should contain (e.g., schedule object fields) or the exact structure of the route IDs. It provides some value beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update schedule' and specifies the HTTP endpoint 'POST /w/company/update_schedule'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like post_w_company_remove_schedule by naming the specific action, though it doesn't elaborate on what fields are updated. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to identify it as a schedule-update operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_w_company_remove_schedule or patch_w_company_scheduler. It does explain where to place parameters (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, etc.), but that is parameter placement, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist) or scenarios where this is appropriate.

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