Update Schedule Metadata

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds return behavior ('Returns the modified schedule metadata'), detailed failure modes with HTTP status codes, and default project_id behavior. This is comprehensive and not contradicted by annotations.

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 long but every sentence contributes: action, table, equivalence note, partial update, default, return, errors, endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly trimmed but contains no wasted content.

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?

With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers valid values, defaults, update semantics, return value, and error handling. It also includes the API path and endpoint, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% but descriptions are minimal ('JSON request body field'). The description adds a full table of valid type keys and notes their functional equivalence, plus default behavior for project_id. However, it doesn't clarify how to structure the nested type object in the request body, so it adds value but not complete clarity.

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 it updates the Schedule integration type for a project, with a specific verb and resource. It provides a detailed table of schedule types, but does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling 'update_schedule_integration_type', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides clear context including partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), project_id default behavior, and error scenarios (401/403/404). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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