Update A Checklist (Inspection) Schedule

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds that it updates fields and returns the modified object, and mentions 'only the supplied fields are changed' – a partial update behavior not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or permission requirements, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 four sentences, all informative and to the point. It includes the required parameters, the API reference, and the behavior. No redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Exemplary conciseness.

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 an update tool with fully documented parameters and annotations (no output schema), the description provides essential information: the operation, the partial update nature, and required parameters. It could mention error responses or idempotency, but the core functional context is sufficient. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the note that it returns the modified object.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions. The description lists required parameters (project_id, id) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'only the supplied fields are changed' implies optionality, but this is already inferred from the schema where only two fields are required. No additional semantic value.

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 'Updates' and the resource 'Checklist (Inspection) Schedule' in a specified Project. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_a_checklist_inspection_schedule' by implying an update to an existing schedule. However, the phrase 'Updates the specified Inspections' is slightly ambiguous and could mislead an agent into thinking it updates inspections directly rather than the schedule.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to update an existing Inspections' and 'only the supplied fields are changed', providing clear context for when to use this tool (to modify an existing schedule with partial updates). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is adequate for most use cases.

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