Update recurring schedule

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'The next run time is recomputed by the server when timing changes.' This supplements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations. However, it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacement, or how parameter interactions (e.g., dayOfWeek with frequency) are handled.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core action and field scope front-loaded. The final sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but the description remains tight and scannable.

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 an 11-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description gives enough initial orientation but omits important operational context such as whether omitted fields are preserved, how frequency-dependent fields interact, and what the response will contain. The schema fills parameter detail, but the overall update semantics are underspecified.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The prose description mostly restates parameter categories without adding new semantic details, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 action ('Update an existing recurring schedule') and enumerates the main changeable aspects: name, content template, frequency/timing, timezone, media, and active status. This clearly distinguishes update_schedule from sibling create_schedule, delete_schedule, and list_schedules tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to change a recurring schedule,' which provides clear contextual guidance for the main use case. It does not mention exclusions or when a sibling tool like create_schedule would be more appropriate, but the 'existing' phrasing and update intent are reasonably unambiguous.

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