ds_update_schedule_cron

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It discloses the offline/online flow, the auto_online default, and the v2.0.10 change in query behavior. It also documents the return structure. This goes beyond a simple mutation notice and provides useful operational context, though it omits error/failure scenarios.

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 well-structured with a summary, flow, version note, args, and returns. Each sentence adds value, and the version note about querying the schedule directly is useful context. It avoids redundancy and remains appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers purpose, workflow, parameter semantics, and expected returns comprehensively. It references sibling tools where helpful and explains the auto-online behavior. The tool is moderately complex, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains all six parameters in detail, including formats for cron and times, the meaning of 'keep original if empty,' and the auto_online default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 specific action: 'Update only the cron expression of a schedule (keeps all other settings).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_set_schedule, which likely updates full schedule settings. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 when to use this tool: when only the cron expression needs modification, with a defined workflow (read current state → offline if needed → update → re-online). It also references ds_list_schedules for obtaining schedule_id. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool, reducing the score slightly.

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