ise_openapi_backup_schedule_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It's a mutating PUT operation, but the description doesn't disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether an existing schedule must already exist), side effects, or failure modes. It doesn't mention what happens if no schedule exists, or whether this overwrites all schedule settings. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with the category tag and endpoint path. Every element earns its place. It's compact and gets to the point quickly.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'data' object of unknown shape. The description provides no information about what fields the data object expects, what the response contains, or what the schedule-update relationship to schedule-create is. For a write operation with an opaque nested body, this is inadequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters (data and deployment). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the deployment description in-schema is already helpful (name/slug/number formats and reference to ise_list_deployments). With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states it updates a scheduled configuration backup via PUT /api/v1/backup-restore/config/schedule-config-backup. The verb+resource is clear, but it doesn't explain what 'update' means in terms of which settings can be modified (frequency, time, repositories, etc.), leaving the agent guessing at the semantics of the operation beyond the endpoint path.

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 [Backup & Restore] category distinguishes this from other ise_openapi_backup_* tools at a high level. The deployment parameter reference to ise_list_deployments provides some context. However, there's no guidance on when to use this vs ise_openapi_backup_schedule_create, nor whether this requires an existing schedule to update vs creating a new one.

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