schedule_update

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

Annotations provide only idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses partial-update behavior ('solo i campi passati') and the side effect that changing cadence or dates recalculates the next execution, but it says nothing about how overrides interact with the stored template, how next_run forcing behaves, or what happens on invalid ids.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the partial-update constraint is front-loaded before the recalculation side effect. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, ambiguous enums, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Key behaviors such as what overrides replaces versus merges, and what the action field controls, are left entirely to an under-documented schema.

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 12 top-level parameters and only ~17% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Cadenza o date' loosely points at every_months/day_of_month/start_date/end_date, but the action enum (create vs create_and_send_sdi), source_document_id, and the scope of the overrides object are never explained in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Modifica una ricorrenza' (modifies a recurrence), which is clearly distinguishable from schedule_create/schedule_list/schedule_get/schedule_delete by name and semantics. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(solo i campi passati)' signals partial-update semantics, which is useful, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to siblings such as schedule_delete for removal or schedule_get to inspect the current recurrence before editing.

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