Update Schedule Integration Type

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

The description discloses that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, which adds value beyond annotations. However, it is ambiguous about whether it updates the schedule integration type or the schedule record itself, lacking full transparency on side effects or prerequisites.

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?

Description contains a truncated table and redundant statements, reducing clarity. Not concise; includes unnecessary repetition.

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 a simple update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states that it returns the modified object. It doesn't elaborate on the object shape, but that's likely acceptable given the 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 coverage is complete; description does not add new parameter guidance beyond restating names. No details on the schedule_type object structure or acceptable keys.

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 purpose: update the schedule integration type for a project. However, it conflates with 'Schedule (Legacy) records' which may cause confusion. No explicit differentiation from sibling update schedule tools.

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 versus alternatives. The description merely restates the action without contextual usage advice.

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