update_scheduled_runUpdate selected fields on a recurring evaluation schedule, including timing, and flag that enabling or rescheduling may trigger future external evaluation activity and costs.
Update selected fields on one recurring evaluation schedule. Enabling or changing timing can trigger future external evaluation activity and costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real context beyond the annotations: enabling or changing timing 'can trigger future external evaluation activity and costs', which explains the consequence of the destructiveHint/openWorldHint flags. It does not say whether changes are reversible or what happens to fields not supplied, but the cost/external-activity warning is genuinely useful.
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 no filler, and the operational warning is placed immediately after the action statement. Nothing needs trimming.
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?
A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an empty input schema and no output schema needs the description to explain how to identify the target run and what inputs are accepted; it does neither. An agent reading this definition knows the effect but not how to actually call it.
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?
The schema declares zero properties, yet the description promises 'selected fields' and implies a target schedule, so the agent cannot tell from either source how a run is identified or which fields are updatable. With 0 params the baseline is 4, but the mismatch between the empty schema and the described field-selection behavior lowers this.
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 selected fields on one recurring evaluation schedule'), which cleanly separates it from create_scheduled_run and list_scheduled_runs. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating which schedule is targeted, so an agent knows the operation but not its scope.
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 choose this over create_scheduled_run or get_scheduled_run, nor any prerequisite (e.g., fetching the run first). The only conditional information is a side-effect warning, which is not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.