campaigns_schedule_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the update is idempotent or reversible, how it interacts with an existing schedule, or what happens on failure. For a mutation endpoint with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded, which is efficient. But for a five-parameter tool with a nested schedule object, the description is undersized rather than appropriately sized.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter set. The description supplies none of the missing context (preconditions, mutation semantics, effect on the existing schedule), leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 80%, so the schema already documents campaign_id, schedule_id, and the nested schedule fields (time, in_local_time, at_optimal_time). The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, which is the expected 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a clear verb (Update) and resource (scheduled API-triggered campaign), and the 'API-triggered' qualifier narrows the campaign type. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like campaigns_schedule_create, campaigns_schedule_delete, or canvas_schedule_update, so an agent still has to infer which schedule operation to pick from the name alone.

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 use this versus creating or deleting a schedule, no prerequisite or precondition, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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