update_site_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the plan constraint on allowed frequencies, which is valuable, but it does not describe the mutation effects (e.g., whether the schedule is replaced, validation behavior, or consequences of an invalid plan/frequency combination). For a simple update tool, this is adequate but sparse.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by the critical plan constraint. Every word adds value—there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple with only 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential plan limitation that prevents invocation errors. It lacks detail on update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), but the schema and tool name provide sufficient context. Overall, this is a reasonably complete description for its complexity.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial plan-based meaning to the delivery_frequency enum, mapping which values are allowed on free vs paid plans. This goes beyond the bare enum list and helps the agent select valid parameter values.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('delivery schedule'). The tool name specifies 'site', and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_deliveries (which lists deliveries) and update_site (which updates site settings). This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides plan-specific usage guidance ('Free plan: weekly only. Paid: daily/weekday/weekly_monday/weekly_friday.'), which tells the agent which delivery_frequency values are valid depending on the account plan. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the unique role of updating a schedule is clear among the sibling tools, and the plan constraint is essential context for correct invocation.

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