Update a cron job

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.