update_schedule

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

Annotations already declare this is destructive, idempotent, and not read-only, so the safety profile is known. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether fields are partially updated or fully replaced, whether changes take effect immediately, or what happens to pending runs. For a destructive tool, this silence is a meaningful 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?

The single sentence 'Update an existing scheduled job' contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the verb. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient editing — there is no detail to structure, so it reads as minimal rather than well-crafted for a 5-parameter tool.

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 destructive tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a sibling toggle_schedule that overlaps in function, this description is grossly inadequate. An agent has no way to know the effect of each parameter, the update semantics, or how this tool differs from toggle_schedule. Nearly all necessary context 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 0% and the description mentions none of the five parameters (name, config_id, schedule_id, stop_on_error, interval_minutes). Neither the schema nor the description explains what these fields mean, how config_id relates to configs, or what interval_minutes controls. The description fails entirely to compensate for the uncovered schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing scheduled job'), making it clear this modifies an existing schedule rather than creating, deleting, or toggling one. The word 'existing' disambiguates from create_schedule among the siblings. However, it does not enumerate what aspects of the job can be updated (name, interval, config, stop_on_error), so the operational scope is only partially clear.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer update_schedule over toggle_schedule (enable/disable) or create_schedule, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid schedule_id. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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