Update an existing scheduler object by UUID to adjust its schedule and timing rules in Security Director Cloud.
Update a scheduler object by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as idempotency, conflict handling, side effects, or error scenarios. Agents cannot determine what happens on success/failure.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, direct to the point. Efficient use of space.
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 simple CRUD update tool, the description omits essential context like return value, error handling, and required permissions. The presence of an output schema could mitigate this, but none is provided.
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 50% (only 'body' has a description). The description adds that 'body' is a JSON request object matching a target schema, which is helpful but vague. The 'uuid' parameter is left undefined, relying solely on its name.
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 verb 'Update', the resource 'scheduler object', and the method 'by UUID'. It is unambiguous but lacks context about what a scheduler is or that it's part of Security Director Cloud, but it sufficiently differentiates from sibling update tools by resource name.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like sdcloud_create_scheduler or sdcloud_get_scheduler. The description does not mention prerequisites, preconditions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.