update_recurring_schedule

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description is not the primary carrier here. It does add a useful hint that the tool can 'deactivate' the schedule, but it never explains what the destructiveHint actually destroys or whether partial updates are atomic.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the affected fields. No filler or redundancy.

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-entity mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema descriptions and annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. It stops short of stating idempotent/partial-update behavior in prose, but that gap is largely covered by the structured fields.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters including enum values and template placeholders. The description only recaps a subset of fields (title, description, frequency, assignee, priority) and adds no format or syntax meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (an existing recurring task schedule), and enumerates the mutable fields. It is clearly distinguishable from create_recurring_task and delete_recurring_schedule, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Update an existing ... schedule' and the required recurring_schedule_id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over create_recurring_task, trigger_recurring_now, or delete_recurring_schedule, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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