update_simple_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating operation, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the update replaces or merges the existing schedule, what permissions are required, whether it is destructive, or what the response contains.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single restated phrase earns no place as a tool description and is not front-loaded with any actionable detail.

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 (6 required) mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool modifies, how the parameters interact, or what a successful call produces.

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, including opaque fields like operation_type, plan_execute_type, plan_repeat_type, site_mode, and work_mode. The description compensates with zero information about any parameter's meaning or expected values.

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 '更新简易排班 / Update simple schedule' is essentially the tool name restated in two languages, adding no scope, target, or effect information. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling schedule tools (update_schedule, create_simple_schedule, delete_simple_schedule, get_schedule).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_schedule, create_simple_schedule, or delete_simple_schedule. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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