Update a schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important constraint, that Pterodactyl requires the full cron expression and name on update, but omits permissions/auth needs, mutation side effects, handling of omitted optional fields, and reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by a key platform constraint. There is no wasted wording.

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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It adds a useful update constraint but does not explain most parameters, auth overrides, side effects, or which schedule fields behave how.

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 only 36%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It mentions only full cron expression and name requirements and leaves server, schedule, hour, day_of_month, month, day_of_week, is_active, only_when_online, and auth/panel override parameters unexplained.

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 a schedule." This distinguishes it from schedule_list, schedule_get, schedule_delete, and schedule_execute, but it does not explicitly differentiate schedule_update from the sibling schedule_task_update.

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 such as schedule_task_update or schedule_create. The only additional note is a platform requirement about full cron expression and name, which is operational context rather than usage routing.

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