update_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing schedule', implying mutation but not explaining whether partial updates are supported, if the schedule must already exist, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. For a tool with 16 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at three words and contains no fluff. However, for a tool with 16 parameters, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It reads more as a label than a meaningful description, though it is not bloated or disorganized.

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 tool has 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only provides a generic action. It does not mention return values, the meaning of the required 'id' parameter, or which schedule domain it applies to (ad serving, VAST, draft, report). This is inadequate for a complex tool and leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'End date/time in ISO-8601 format', 'Delivery pacing: "default" (ASAP) or "smooth" (evenly distributed)'). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('existing schedule'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'vast_update_schedule' or 'draft_update_schedule', which also update schedules in different contexts.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternative schedule-related tools. There are siblings such as 'vast_update_schedule', 'draft_update_schedule', and 'update_report_schedule', but the description offers no selection criteria or context for choosing this one.

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