set_schedule_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'enable or disable' and does not mention side effects, persistence, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to an already enabled/disabled schedule.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a minimal Args block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, but for a mutating tool with no annotations the description omits behavioral context such as side effects or requirements. The schedule_id type mismatch also leaves a correctness gap, making the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 provides no descriptions, so the text must compensate. It usefully enumerates status values 'enabled' or 'disabled', but then describes schedule_id as 'Numeric' while the schema types it as a string, leaving ambiguity about whether the agent should pass an integer or a numeric string.

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 and resource: 'Enable or disable a schedule.' This clearly conveys the operation and distinguishes it from schedule creation, deletion, or retrieval sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with set_rule_status.

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 usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to enable or disable a schedule. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over create_schedule, delete_schedule, or set_rule_status, so guidance is minimal.

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