edit_cron_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Edit an existing cron job,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to mention whether changes are reversible, if it overwrites all unspecified fields (e.g., defaults), or any permission requirements. This matches the level of a bare mutation tool with no extra transparency.

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 six words, with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the main action and object, but the brevity results in minimal information beyond what the tool name already conveys, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to identify the target cron job (e.g., linekey from list_cron_jobs), how editing interacts with existing settings, or what the expected result is. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to contextualize them.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 7 parameters documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema already defines fields like 'minute' and 'command', 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 (edit) and the resource (existing cron job), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_cron_job and delete_cron_job. However, it does not specify which fields can be edited or that it modifies schedule/command, making it slightly less informative than an ideal purpose statement.

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 alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the linekey from list_cron_jobs. The description simply states the action without contextual usage hints.

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