Update Hermes scheduled job

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

The 'writing redacted receipts' detail is a useful behavioral disclosure about side effects. However, with annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, the agent already knows this mutates state. The description doesn't address what 'redacted receipts' implies, whether updates are reversible, or any permission/auth requirements. It adds some context but lacks depth for a state-changing operation.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the HTTP method, path, and action, then enumerates the updatable fields. Zero waste, every element earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and 8 parameters where 6 are nullable optional fields, the description covers the core semantics (partial update of specific fields). The 'redacted receipts' note hints at response behavior. This is reasonably complete for a well-scoped REST update wrapper, though it could mention idempotency or prerequisite job existence.

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 only 25% (only job_id and enabled have descriptions), so the description partially compensates by listing editable fields (prompt, schedule, skills, provider/model, delivery, enabled). However, it doesn't clarify nuances like whether setting enabled=false is equivalent to pause, or format requirements for schedule/deliver. The description maps field categories but doesn't add syntax details.

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 this is a typed PATCH /api/jobs/{job_id} wrapper that partially updates a scheduled Hermes cron job, and lists updatable fields (prompt, schedule, skills, provider/model, delivery, enabled). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/get/pause/resume/run, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 clearly indicates this is a 'partial update' operation, distinguishing it from create, delete, pause, resume, and run siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for pausing/resuming use dedicated tools) or mention lifecycle context like needing an existing job_id first.

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