hcp_update_job_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable specificity: 'Overwrites existing schedule — previous values are lost.' This tells the agent the exact consequence of calling the tool. The ISO 8601 format requirement is also useful behavioral/validation context beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The overwrite warning and the ISO 8601 format constraint are both essential and front-loaded.

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 covers the core destructive behavior and a key format constraint, and output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the optional employee_ids parameter is undocumented, and it is unclear whether omitting it clears employee assignments or preserves them — an important gap for a destructive schedule update.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It only clarifies that schedule times must be ISO 8601, which helps for scheduled_start and scheduled_end, but it does not explain the required job_id or the optional employee_ids parameter and its null/array semantics.

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 and resource: 'Update a job's schedule.' It goes beyond the name by adding the overwrite semantics and scope, making it clear this tool is for replacing an existing schedule rather than creating a job or reading one. This differentiates it from siblings like hcp_create_job and hcp_get_job.

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 use when an existing job's schedule needs to be changed, and the overwrite warning signals a destructive update. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or name alternative tools for related operations.

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