Update a schedule

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

The description discloses the confirm-gate write behavior and, importantly, that there is no server-side dry run — context the readOnlyHint=false annotation does not convey. It still omits what a PATCH does to fields not supplied, permission requirements, and rate limits.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, with the safety warning immediately after. No filler, though the parenthetical about missing dry run could be folded into the same sentence for tighter flow.

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 write tool with a nested body, no output schema and 50% parameter coverage, the description covers the critical safety gate but leaves the body shape, update semantics, and preview return value (mentioned only in the confirm param's schema text) unaddressed.

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 coverage is 50%: confirm and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema, and the description only reinforces confirm's meaning with the no-dry-run note. The nested body object (7 fields: hour, weekday, frequency, dayOfMonth, recipients, templateId, enabled) gets no explanation in the description, so the gap is not compensated.

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 verb and resource ('Update a schedule') and pins it to the HTTP operation (PATCH /v1/report-schedules/{id}), so an agent can tell it modifies an existing schedule rather than creating or deleting one. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (reportSchedules_create/delete) it must not be confused with.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Update' plus the PATCH path tells the agent this is for modifying an existing schedule. There is no guidance on when to prefer reportSchedules_create or reportSchedules_delete, no prerequisites, and no note about partial-body semantics.

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