update-schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing update semantics—whether fields not specified are preserved or reset, whether isDefault unsets other defaults, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and completely free of filler. It earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite full parameter documentation, the description omits operational context for an update operation: partial-update behavior, impact on existing availability windows, default-schedule handling, and no output schema to clarify the result. An agent cannot fully predict the consequences of calling this tool from the description alone.

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 100%, with each parameter (scheduleId, name, timeZone, isDefault, availability) already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing availability schedule' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('availability schedule'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create-schedule and delete-schedule siblings. It is not a tautology and is immediately understandable.

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?

Usage is implied: 'existing' suggests modifying an already-created schedule, and sibling tools like create-schedule and delete-schedule imply alternatives. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create-schedule or when not to use it, leaving the selection to inference.

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