Scheduler settings

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

The description explicitly reveals that the tool can both read ('Get') and mutate ('patch') settings, which is useful given readOnlyHint is only false rather than affirmatively informative. It also adds context that webhook_url is a callback used by Claude/ChatGPT/AdvisorPPC. However, it does not disclose effects of patching, whether partial updates are supported, authentication needs, or what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the core operation ('Get or patch') before listing the affected fields. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the scope.

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 there is no output schema and no explicit parameter documentation, the description should clarify the response shape, empty-parameter behavior, and relationship to scheduler setup/status tools. It does none of these, leaving important operational details unresolved. The tool may be functional for an informed agent, but contextually it is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mostly repeats parameter names without explaining their meaning. It adds only a clue that webhook_url is a digest callback for AI assistants; timezone format, tick_ms units/role, and public_url purpose remain ambiguous. This is insufficient for a tool with four optional parameters.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Get or patch') and enumerates the specific settings involved: timezone, webhook_url, tick_ms, public_url. It is more specific than the title and lets an agent identify this as the settings-management tool among many scheduler siblings. The phrase 'digest webhook_url' is slightly awkward, but the overall purpose is still 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like x_organic_scheduler_setup, x_organic_scheduler_status, or x_organic_schedule_*. It does not state that this is for reading/updating shared scheduler configuration rather than setting up or inspecting schedules. The agent is left to infer usage from the verb phrase alone.

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