update_report_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely says 'Update' without explaining the extent of changes, whether it is a partial or full replacement, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting recipients). This leaves the agent with no insight into the operation's impact.

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-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It contains no additional useful information to justify its place, though it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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 the lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool is not adequately contextualized. The schema lists parameters but does not convey overall behavior, preconditions, or consequences of updating a report schedule, leaving an agent without a complete picture.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about parameter relationships or the necessity of the required identifiers beyond what the schema states.

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 the resource (a report schedule), making its primary purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_schedule' or provide details on which aspects of the schedule can be changed, so it is not fully distinctive.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus create or delete report schedules, or how it relates to other update operations. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

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