Update scheduled EV assessment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is known. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'update', such as partial vs full replacement, required ownership, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specifying rather than being concisely informative; it repeats the title almost verbatim, which limits its value.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a complex nested 'payload' object. The minimal description is completely inadequate for an agent to construct a valid request; it lacks any explanation of what should go into the payload or how the update behaves.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description makes no attempt to explain the parameters. 'schedule_id' is self-explanatory by name, but 'payload' is an opaque generic object with additionalProperties allowed, and the description gives zero clues about its expected structure or required fields.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and names the exact resource 'scheduled EV assessment', making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get by both verb and resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_create or cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when an update is appropriate.

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