updateRebootSchedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses that this is a destructive replace (PUT), not a merge, and that the full object must be submitted. It also surfaces the authentication requirement. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but the core side effect is clearly communicated.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, PUT semantics with workflow, and credential requirement. The most important caveat (replace, not merge) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose.

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 and no output schema, it covers the essential call pattern, the destructive semantics, and the prerequisite read. Minor gaps remain around response/return behavior and how siteId affects the request, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already documents the critical 'data' parameter as the full schedule object and tells the caller to fetch it first; the description restates this rather than adding new meaning. It does not clarify the optional siteId parameter or the exact semantics of scheduleId beyond its name. At only 33% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific action ('update an existing reboot schedule') with a clear resource, and immediately distinguishes the operation from a merge by calling it a replace (PUT). The word 'existing' differentiates it from createRebootSchedule, and the reference to listRebootSchedules ties it to its read counterpart.

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?

Gives an explicit read-modify-write workflow: fetch with listRebootSchedules, change desired fields, and send the whole object back. It also states the required credentials. It does not explicitly say 'use createRebootSchedule for new schedules' or list exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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