update_schedule_time_range

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

Annotations already indicate that the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal context ('existing'), but does not disclose details like the apply_immediately parameter's effect, behavior on missing IDs, or whether it replaces or patches fields. It does not contradict annotations.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, target, and scope efficiently.

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?

Given the comprehensive parameter schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides an adequate overview. It could mention that changes may be deferred via apply_immediately or that parent_id moves the range, but these are already documented in schema. The tool is a simple update operation, so the existing description is largely sufficient.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., time_range_id source, hour format, day-month pairing). The description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('existing time range within a firewall schedule') and identifies the key identifier ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_schedule_time_range, delete_schedule_time_range, and update_firewall_schedule.

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?

The description implies usage (update an existing time range) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the need to obtain time_range_id from search_schedule_time_ranges), and no exclusions. It relies heavily on the tool name and sibling context.

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