update_scheduled_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one real constraint beyond structured data — packages must export onSchedule(input) from their manifest entry — but omits update semantics (full replacement vs. partial patch), permission implications of the manifest, and whether changes take effect immediately or require a reload.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mode selection, then the package contract. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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 9-parameter tool with a nested package object, required-field semantics, and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the single/package split but leaves key gaps: what happens to omitted optional fields on update, how the manifest permissions are honored, and what a successful update returns.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description goes further by explaining the script_type=single + script versus script_type=package + script_package pairing and the package entry contract, which the schema only gestures at with generic field descriptions.

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 a specific verb ("Updates") and a precise resource ("locally stored Cron or millisecond-interval JavaScript task"), which cleanly separates it from create_scheduled_task and set_scheduled_task_enabled. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the verb choice makes the distinction unambiguous.

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?

It explains which script_type mode to choose and what each requires, which is genuine usage guidance for the parameters. However, it never addresses when to call update_scheduled_task versus create_scheduled_task, what prerequisites exist, or whether an existing task must first be fetched.

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