cleanuparr_update_job_schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention that the entire existing schedule is overwritten, what happens to job state, or any side effects. The word 'Replace' is consistent with the annotation but adds no extra transparency.

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 one short sentence, which is structurally concise. However, it under-specifies crucial details, making the conciseness a result of omission rather than efficiency. It is not overly verbose but fails to earn its place by providing actionable information.

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 output schema covers return values, and the destructiveHint annotation provides safety context. Yet, with two mandatory parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a nested schedule object, the description does not adequately explain parameter semantics or usage context. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description only references 'JobSchedule DTO' without explaining its structure or valid values. The 'schedule' object remains opaque, and 'job_type' has no enumerated values or examples. The mention of the DTO provides a slight hint but does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Replace' and names the resource 'job schedule', which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trigger_job or start_job by focusing on schedule replacement. However, it does not clarify what a JobSchedule DTO is or which job types are valid.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It lacks context such as whether all job types have schedules or whether an existing schedule must exist before replacement. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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