update_schedule

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It is a mutation tool with 20 parameters, yet there is no mention of required permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing schedule entries, or auth requirements.

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 text is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is nothing to front-load because no useful content exists.

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 a 20-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. It gives an agent no basis for invoking this correctly or safely.

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% across 20 parameters (9 required), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Critical fields like operation_type, plan_execute_type, semester_type, and plan_repeat_type are left entirely opaque.

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 is essentially a bilingual restatement of the tool name: '更新标准排班 / Update schedule'. The word '标准' (standard) faintly hints at a distinction from update_simple_schedule, but no verb+resource detail or explicit differentiation is provided. This is close to tautology.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus update_simple_schedule, create_schedule, or delete_schedule, all of which appear as siblings. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions.

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