set_schedule_active

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so an important safety fact (this can deactivate/disable a schedule) is already flagged, yet the description adds nothing about impact, reversibility, or what happens to in-flight scheduled runs. The only added behavior note is a generic body-encoding caveat about JSON string fields, which is minor.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no real padding; the endpoint and body-encoding caveat are both actionable. The middle clause about supplying API fields in body is somewhat boilerplate but not bloated.

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?

For a destructive, world-affecting mutation with a nested body object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin — it should at least state the effect of setting `active` true/false and any permission requirements. An agent cannot confidently call this correctly from the current text.

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 0% across three parameters including a required nested `body.active` boolean, and the description only says "supply API fields in body" without explaining that `active` is the toggle or what value disables a schedule. The string-encoding note is helpful but does not compensate for the missing semantics.

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?

"Set Schedule Active" largely restates the tool name and the PUT path clarifies the resource, but the description never says whether this enables, disables, or toggles the schedule (the `active` boolean is only visible in the schema). It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the several sibling setters (set_app_active, set_project_runner_active, set_global_runner_active).

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 indication of when to use this instead of update_schedule, delete_schedule, or validate_schedule, nor any prerequisite or authorization context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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