Upload Schedule File

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about file formats and that only supplied fields are changed, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose error scenarios or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps beyond 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 moderately concise but somewhat fragmented: starts with a statement, then a table, then a usage explanation. The table is useful but adds length. It is front-loaded but could be more organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions returning the modified object on success, which is helpful. However, it does not cover error handling, rate limits, or clearly distinguish from the sibling version v1_0_2. The context is adequate but not fully complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by listing supported file formats (MPP, MPX, XER, PP, etc.) and noting the required parameters, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Upload a schedule file' and explains it updates existing Schedule (Legacy) records, which is clear. However, the verb 'upload' vs actual action 'update' could be confusing. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool upload_schedule_file_v1_0_2, which likely serves the same purpose.

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 vs alternatives like download_schedule_file or other schedule tools. It only says 'Use this to update an existing Schedule (Legacy) records', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative descriptions.

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