update_firewall_schedule

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already communicate (non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive). It doesn't describe side effects like whether changes require an apply step, though the apply_immediately parameter in the schema hints at it.

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, clear and front-loaded, no filler. Every word earns its place and the description is efficiently minimal.

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?

Simple tool with well-documented schema and an output schema present. The description is adequate for a straightforward update, but relies heavily on schema and annotations for context; it doesn't describe behavior when only ID is provided or whether changes are staged.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond 'by ID', but the schema fully documents the fields.

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 the specific verb 'update' and resource 'firewall schedule' with 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/search siblings. It precisely states what the tool does.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention that schedule_id should come from search_firewall_schedules or when to prefer this over create/delete. It lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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