update_scheduled_job

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful operational constraint: requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. This is beyond the annotations and tells the agent that the environment must have write capability enabled for this tool to function.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It immediately states the purpose and the key prerequisite, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter update tool, the description plus schema covers the essentials. It mentions the fields object with example field names, and the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite. No output schema exists, but returning the updated record is standard for update tools and not strictly necessary to document.

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 100% - both sys_id and fields have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' plus the resource 'scheduled job,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scheduled_job, get_scheduled_job, trigger_scheduled_job, and list_scheduled_jobs. It leaves no doubt about what operation is performed.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over create/trigger. The WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' and the resource name.

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