Update job schedules

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide, such as error handling, permissions, or effects of updating schedules.

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 a single concise sentence, appropriately front-loaded. It is not verbose, but could benefit from slightly more detail.

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?

The description is minimal for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain that schedules are replaced in bulk, the role of the 'enabled' field, or any limitations. Given the presence of annotations and full schema, it still lacks important usage context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 job schedules for an environment' clearly states the action (update), resource (job schedules), and scope (for an environment). It distinguishes from siblings like arcane_job_schedule_get and arcane_job_run, but lacks specificity about updating multiple schedules at once.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that arcane_job_schedule_get should be used for reading current schedules or that arcane_job_run is for executing jobs.

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