update_scheduling_page

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

Even though annotations already indicate this is a write operation, the description adds critical behavior: omitted optional fields reset to defaults, and setting is_active=False pauses the page. This goes well beyond the annotations and explains the exact consequences of the full-replace update.

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 tightly worded sentences deliver the full-replace rule, the required workflow, and a key behavioral toggle without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (15 params, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the most crucial operational context: the full-replace semantics, the get-before-update pattern, and default-reset behavior. Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed here. References to create_scheduling_page for field meanings are reasonable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds key semantic meaning for parameter handling: all fields must be passed, omitted optionals reset, and is_active controls page pause. However, individual field meanings are deferred to create_scheduling_page rather than explained inline, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 states the tool updates a scheduling page and immediately distinguishes it from creation by emphasizing the full-replace semantics. It also names the companion tool get_scheduling_page, reinforcing its role relative to siblings like create_scheduling_page.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: call get_scheduling_page first, modify desired fields, and pass every field back to avoid resets. It does not explicitly contrast with create_scheduling_page, but the full-replace instruction implies the correct usage context and avoids common pitfalls.

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