cron_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update semantic (only changed fields are supplied, implying the rest are preserved), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, error handling, or what changes if a field is left out.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation statement, followed by a compact Args block that earns its length given the zero schema coverage. No filler, though the Args list is somewhat mechanical rather than integrated prose.

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?

A mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output explanation needed (output schema exists). The parameter documentation compensates well, and partial-update semantics are stated; only auth requirements and failure behavior are absent, which are minor omissions.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: it documents all seven parameters with meaningful ranges and accepted syntax (minutes 0-59, hours 0-23, days 1-31, months 1-12, weekdays 0-7, plus '*'/'*/N' notation). task_id is described only minimally as "ID задачи", which keeps this from a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Изменить параметры cron-задачи" = modify cron-task parameters), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cron_add/cron_delete/cron_toggle, but the name and verb make the distinction clear enough in practice.

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?

"Указывайте только обновляемые поля" tells the agent this is a partial update and that unspecified fields should be omitted, which is useful invocation guidance. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no explicit reference to alternative tools such as cron_add or cron_toggle.

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