Update Schedule Metadata

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned, which clarifies the behavior beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 repetitive, stating the purpose multiple times ('Updates the Schedule integration type...' and 'Use this to update...'). The table is useful but the truncation and duplication of 'project_id' in required parameters hurt conciseness. Not extremely efficient.

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 description covers the main action, parameters, and that it returns the modified object, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar sibling tools. Given no output schema, more context on return value shape would be beneficial.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds a table of valid schedule types for the 'type' parameter, which provides concrete values beyond the schema's 'additionalProperties' object. However, the table is truncated, slightly reducing its 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?

Clearly states it updates the Schedule integration type for a project, using a specific verb+resource. However, there is a sibling tool named 'update_schedule_integration_type' with an identical purpose, and the description does not differentiate between them, slightly reducing clarity.

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 versus alternatives like 'update_schedule_integration_type'. It merely says 'Use this to update...' without specifying context or exclusions, which is insufficient for an AI agent to make an informed choice.

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