draft_update_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'update' without revealing consequences such as overwrite semantics, required permissions, reversibility, or return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence ('Update an existing draft schedule') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and achieves maximum conciseness.

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 is minimal and only restates the tool's name without adding context. No output schema or annotations exist, so it should explain draft schedule specifics, side effects, or return behavior. It fails to provide this, especially when compared to sibling tools that differentiate draft vs. live workflow.

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 'id' and 'draft' have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema effectively documents the parameters, though the nested 'draft' object's structure is left open-ended.

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 clearly states the action (update) and resource (existing draft schedule), distinguishing it from creation and deletion tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_schedule or vast_update_schedule, relying on the 'draft' prefix in the name and description.

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 for draft schedules through the word 'draft', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus live schedule update tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied by the naming convention, not stated.

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