Workbooks Update Workbook Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds the useful detail that body is a partial set of updatable fields ("may set ..."), but never says whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, what permissions are needed, or how a changed cronSpec affects in-flight exports.

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 short sentences, the mutation intent front-loaded, and the ID-retrieval hint placed after. No wasted text, though the field list could be tightened with a format note instead of a bare enumeration.

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 need no explanation, and the body field enumeration covers the biggest schema gap. Still missing for a 3-required-param mutation with 0% schema coverage: partial-update semantics, cronSpec/timezone format, and permission requirements.

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% and body is a free-form additionalProperties object, so the schema carries essentially no semantics. The description compensates well by enumerating the accepted body fields (target, schedule with cronSpec/timezone, configV2, description, suspensionAction); it stops short of giving formats for cronSpec or timezone.

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 workbook's scheduled export"), which is concrete enough to separate it from workbooks_add_workbook_schedule and workbooks_delete_workbook_schedule. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the resource scoping makes the intent unambiguous.

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 supplies one actionable prerequisite: "Retrieve schedule IDs with workbooks_list_workbook_schedules." Beyond that it gives no guidance on when to update versus delete-and-recreate, or when to use workbooks_update_report_schedule instead.

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