Workbooks Update Report Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of settable body fields, but omits whether this is a partial merge update or full replacement, and whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared.

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 tight sentences with the mutation purpose front-loaded and the ID-retrieval hint following. No filler; it could earn a 5 only with slightly more structural clarity around the body fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given the nested body object, the description is mostly complete, with only the partial-update semantics as a remaining gap.

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 partially does by naming the body sub-fields (target, schedule, configV2, description, suspensionAction), but leaves the top-level report_id/schedule_id semantics and the exact shape of each body field undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a report's scheduled export'), so the agent knows it mutates an existing schedule rather than creating or deleting one. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like workbooks_create_report_schedule or workbooks_delete_report_schedule, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Provides one useful prerequisite ('Retrieve schedule IDs with workbooks_list_report_schedules'), which routes the agent to the listing sibling. However, it gives no guidance on when to update versus create/delete a schedule, or on partial vs full replacement semantics.

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