putschedule

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Update schedule' does not indicate idempotency, whether it is a full replacement or partial update, or any side effects. The required 'id' parameter implies mutability, but no further details are given.

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 extremely terse (2 words) and omits critical context for a complex tool with many nested parameters. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested requestBody, many fields, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what fields can be updated, behavioral nuances, or return value expectations, making it nearly useless for correct invocation.

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 adequately. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable as a baseline.

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 schedule' indicates a verb and resource, but is overly generic and does not distinguish from sibling tools like patchschedule. It lacks specificity about what is updated or the scope of the operation.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., patchschedule for partial updates, postschedule for creation). There are no prerequisites or usage context mentioned.

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