Update a schedule task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about mutation semantics: which fields are overwritten vs. preserved, whether omitting optional fields clears them, or what permissions/credentials are needed. For a write operation over 12 parameters this is a complete 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 single sentence is short with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — it fails to convey anything an agent needs before calling a 5-required-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With 12 parameters, 5 required, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition gives the agent nothing to work with. It cannot determine how to identify the task, what the action enum means, or what the offset is relative to.

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?

Only 33% of the 12 parameters have schema descriptions, so the description must compensate, yet it names zero parameters. Nothing explains the action enum (command/power/backup), time_offset, sequence_id, continue_on_failure, or the inline override fields.

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 task within a schedule' is essentially the tool name/title (schedule_task_update / 'Update a schedule task') reworded. It adds no scope, no indication of what 'update' modifies (action, payload, timing, sequence), and does not distinguish it from schedule_task_create or schedule_task_delete in the sibling set.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites (existing schedule and task required), no mention of the create/delete/execute siblings, and no note on when an update is preferred over deleting and re-creating the task.

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