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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key constraints: title must be unique and max 128 characters. However, it does not describe what happens on duplicate titles, whether the folder is created empty, or what a successful creation returns.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the essential constraints. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what is created, its purpose, and the title constraints. It is not fully complete regarding error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the description covers most invocation needs.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the title parameter and its uniqueness/length constraints. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail beyond the broader purpose of organizing cron jobs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new folder to organize cron jobs into.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like create_job and makes its role in the folder/job hierarchy explicit.

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 phrase 'to organize cron jobs into' implies this tool is for creating a container before adding jobs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_job or update_folder. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral detail: omitted schedule fields default to [-1], causing an empty schedule to run every minute. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, duplicate behavior, side effects, 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 description is two tight sentences that lead with the core purpose and then provide the most critical caveat. It does not repeat schema property descriptions or add fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 13 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this short description is not complete enough. It covers URL and schedule defaults but says nothing about authentication, what a successful response looks like, or how this creation operation affects the account.

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 already documents most parameters at 77% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by stating that only url is mandatory and by explaining what happens when schedule fields are omitted, a nuance the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new cron job on cron-job.org.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs, update_job, and delete_job by identifying it as the creation action.

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 tool's purpose implies it should be used for creating new cron jobs, and the description adds useful call-construction guidance about the mandatory url field and default schedule behavior. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with update_job or states when not to use this tool, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the disclosure burden and does reveal the key non-cascading behavior: contained jobs are kept and become unfoldered. However, it doesn't mention whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to nested folders, or whether special permissions are required.

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 carry the full meaning: the operation and its main side effect. There is no filler, and the key fact about jobs is placed immediately after the action.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential effect needed for correct use: the folder is deleted while its jobs are preserved. It is slightly incomplete on edge behaviors such as subfolder handling, but not enough to block a typical call.

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 already covers the only parameter folderId at 100% and describes it as a numeric ID. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific operation and resource ('Delete a folder') and immediately clarifies scope with 'Jobs inside it are not deleted; they become unfoldered.' This distinguishes it from delete_job and other folder tools despite the title being similar.

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 intended use is implied: choose this tool when the goal is to remove a folder but keep its jobs, as shown by the 'jobs become unfoldered' note. It does not explicitly name alternatives, conditions, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes permanence ('Permanently delete') and scope ('by ID'), but does not mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., running jobs, dependent resources), or whether the deletion is irrevocable beyond the word 'permanently'.

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 description is a single short sentence that conveys the primary purpose and the key identifier. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one required integer) and lack of output schema, the description suffices for basic invocation. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations, the absence of impact details (permissions, irrevocability side effects) leaves it slightly incomplete.

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 100%, and the parameter 'jobId' is already well described as the job's numeric ID. The description adds no new detail about how to find or format the ID, but the schema already sufficiently covers 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?

The description clearly states the specific verb and resource: permanently delete a cron job by ID. It distinguishes the operation from siblings like get_job and list_jobs, although it doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_folder.

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 conveys a clear delete action on a cron job, implying it should be used when the intent is to remove a cron job permanently. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., soft delete or reversible actions), nor does it mention alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (retrieving details) but does not mention any limitations, such as whether the folder must exist, what happens if the ID is invalid, or what specific details are returned. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. 'Get details for one folder by ID' is front-loaded and contains exactly the essential information: action, resource, scope, and identifier.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to invoke it (by folderId). However, it lacks any detail about the return value shape or error behavior, which an agent might need for a successful call, though the simplicity mitigates the 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 description coverage is 100% – the only parameter, folderId, is already documented as 'The folder's numeric ID' in the schema. The description reinforces that the folder is identified by ID but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Since the schema fully covers parameter meaning, a baseline of 3 applies, and the description's explicit mention of 'by ID' slightly elevates it to 4.

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 'Get details for one folder by ID' clearly states the action (get), the resource (folder), and the identifier (ID). It is specific enough to distinguish it from list_folders (which lists all folders) and update_folder (which modifies a folder), though it doesn't explicitly carve out that distinction.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single folder by ID, and its sibling list_folders suggests an alternative for getting multiple folders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is clear from the verb 'get' but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds the useful conditional that response headers/body are only returned if saved, and the verb 'Get' signals a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error/not-found handling, or any authentication or rate considerations.

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 description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the conditional 'if saved' adds necessary nuance without bloat.

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?

The tool has only two params, both documented in the schema, and no output schema exists. The description adequately explains what the response contains and the schema shows where the identifier comes from. A note on missing-entry behavior would make it fully complete, but this is a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so both jobId and identifier are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; the parenthetical about response content concerns the return value rather than the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one execution history entry'), and states what is included ('full details including response headers/body if saved'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list operation get_job_history and other job tools.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single history entry, and the schema's identifier description explicitly references get_job_history as the source of the identifier. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the singular scope and provenance provide clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that this is a read operation ('Get') and discloses the specific fields returned, which is useful. But it says nothing about error behavior, whether the job must exist, response format, or sensitivity of returned auth data—gaps that are partly mitigated by the simplicity of a get-by-ID operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the identification method, and the scope of returned data. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return scope. It stops slightly short of being fully complete by omitting not-found behavior, but given the low complexity of the operation, this is a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains jobId as 'The job's numeric ID.' The description merely echoes 'by ID' and adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('cron job'), and a clear scope ('by ID'), and it enumerates the included detail areas (auth, notifications, headers, body). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or get_job_history without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'for one cron job by ID' implies this is the tool to use when retrieving a single job's full details, which provides clear context. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_jobs to see all jobs'), so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies what information is returned (recent executions and predicted timestamps). It does not, however, disclose return structure, paginaton, ordering, or any potential rate/access considerations, though such detail is less critical for a simple read-only list tool.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main function ('List recent executions') before adding the secondary feature ('predicted upcoming timestamps'). No words are wasted and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with only one required, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately defines what the agent should expect: recent executions and upcoming timestamps. It does not list specific fields or limits, but given the low complexity and the absence of a return schema, the description is reasonably complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%: jobId is documented as 'The job's numeric ID' with an integer type. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already fully explains the only parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List recent executions of a cron job' and adds a distinguishing detail about 'predicted upcoming execution timestamps.' This clearly differentiates it from job configuration tools like get_job or mutating tools like create_job/update_job/delete_job, and from get_history_item, which would target a single history entry.

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 implies its use case: when you need recent execution history or upcoming timestamps for a cron job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name related siblings like get_history_item or list_jobs for contrast.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all folders' clearly indicates a read-only enumeration, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether the response contains folder metadata, counts, or other details. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 description is a single concise sentence that immediately states both the action and the scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy with the title or sibling context.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource and the organizing concept. It would be more complete with an explicit statement about the return type or the distinction from get_folder, but the low complexity keeps these gaps minor.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed because the tool takes no inputs.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all folders used to organize cron jobs'), which makes the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_folder, which also deals with folders, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'all folders' implies the tool is for retrieving a complete folder listing rather than a single folder, and naming the cron-job organization purpose gives helpful context. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over get_folder or how it relates to the other sibling tools, leaving usage mostly implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation and there is no misleading destructive implication. Still, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or response shape beyond what 'list' implies.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and scope are all immediately clear.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema list tool, the essential scope and operation are complete. It could additionally describe the return format or edge cases, but those are less critical for correctly invoking this simple read-only list.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'all cron jobs in the account' adds scope meaning beyond the empty schema, clarifying what the parameterless call actually returns.

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 (list), resource (cron jobs), and scope (the account). The word 'all' also distinguishes it from the sibling get_job, which implies fetching a single job.

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 implies use when an agent needs an enumeration of every cron job in the account. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_job or mention exclusions, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Rename an existing folder.' It does not mention that the title must be unique (though schema does), what happens on duplicate titles, whether the operation is reversible, or what kind of response is returned.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point only because it is so minimal that it does not contribute contextual value beyond the title and tool name.

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 low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient for an agent to make a call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important context about expected return values, error behavior, and side effects is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents folderId and title, including the uniqueness constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('existing folder'), so it is clear what the tool does and it is not confused with create/delete/list folder tools. However, it closely restates the title 'Rename a folder' and adds only the word 'existing,' so it does not go beyond the obvious.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, or get_folder. It only implies applicability to an existing folder, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key partial-update trait (omitted fields remain unchanged), but it does not describe response behavior, permissions, validation, or idempotency. There is also an apparent tension: 'only include fields you want to change' is at odds with the schema's required url field.

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 with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the partial-update guidance is the only additional information, so every sentence earns its place.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It doesn't mention what a successful update returns, whether required fields must always be included, or any caveats about the nested schedule/notification objects. An agent would have to infer important invocation details from the schema alone.

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 79%, so most parameters are already explained in the schema. The description adds a useful global rule about partial updates, but it does not clarify the required url semantics or the nested schedule/auth structures beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing cron job'), which clearly signals modification of a current job rather than creation or deletion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_job and delete_job by the word 'existing,' though it does not name those alternatives.

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 instruction to include only changed fields implies partial-update usage, telling the agent it doesn't need to send the whole job object. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer update_job over create_job/get_job/delete_job, nor does it mention looking up current values with get_job before editing.

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