updatePoeSchedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context by stating that the update is a full replacement ('replace, not merge') and requires specific credentials. Still, it omits details about side effects, idempotency, partial-update behavior, or what happens on failure.

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 very short and front-loads the most important facts: the operation, the replace-not-merge behavior, and the auth requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, three parameters (one nested object), and 33% schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: partial update semantics, required vs optional parameters, site scoping, return value, and error conditions are not addressed. The credential note and replace behavior are useful but insufficient for full contextual comprehension.

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 description coverage is low (33%), with only 'data' described, and the description adds no additional clarifications about 'scheduleId' or 'siteId'. It does clarify that 'data' is a full replacement object, which helps, but most parameter semantics remain implicit or undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing PoE schedule') and differentiates from sibling tools like createPoeSchedule and deletePoeSchedule by emphasizing 'replace, not merge'. It clearly identifies the operation's scope and semantics.

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 implies usage: update an existing PoE schedule rather than create or delete one. It also notes credential requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the environment variables.

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