update_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: a validation rule (the Base Playlist cannot be added as an entry) and a destructive side effect (changing base_playlist_id deletes matching entries). It does not clarify whether the entries array replaces all existing entries or merges with them, nor any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the two constraints that could cause data loss. No 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main destructive behavior and a key validation rule, which is the most important missing context. The remaining gap is the unspecified update semantics of the entries array (full replacement vs. incremental).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the semantic constraint on the entries payload and the cascading delete triggered by base_playlist_id. It still does not explain replace-vs-append semantics for entries.

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 and resource ('Modify the schedule for a station'), which is immediately distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_schedule. It does not explicitly name get_schedule or otherwise route the agent, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 context is implied by the verb 'Modify' and by the constraint about entries, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_schedule or update_station. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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