fofa_schedule_update

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: replacement is done 'while retaining history' and running tasks cannot be edited, clarifying the mutation's boundaries and the fact that prior data is preserved.

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 that moves from action and scope to behavioral constraints. Every clause carries useful information, with no redundant or filler wording.

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 adequately conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraints, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, given the complex nested request schema with no field descriptions, the definition leaves significant parameter guidance gaps for an agent constructing the update payload.

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 has 0% description coverage and a nested request object with many fields. The description mentions time, task, and query specification, which maps to some request fields, but it does not explain schedule_id or cover the many other request properties such as name, fields, analyze, language, timezone, max_pages, check_alive, and max_records.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and scope ('saved schedule's time, task and query specification'), which clearly distinguishes an update of an existing schedule from sibling operations like create, list, stop, or delete. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the 'saved schedule' framing makes the intended target clear.

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 when to use it by saying it replaces an existing schedule's specification, and it adds one exclusion ('running tasks cannot be edited'). However, it does not explicitly compare against fofa_schedule_create or other schedule-management siblings, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the running-task constraint.

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