Modify an existing device schedule slot, changing only the fields you provide.
Update an existing schedule slot, only the fields provided are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onTs | No | ||
| slot | Yes | Which schedule slot (0-4) to update. | |
| label | No | ||
| offTs | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| deviceId | Yes | The device's public id, e.g. dev_a1b2c3. | |
| onCommand | No | ||
| offCommand | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait – partial/patch semantics, since only provided fields are changed – but omits permission requirements, error behavior for invalid slots, and whether omitted fields are truly preserved versus reset.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key constraint (partial update) front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity leaves no room for the guidance the tool needs.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and 8 parameters at 25% coverage, the description is too thin. It should cover permissions, the meaning of slot range, the on/off command pairing, and error conditions.
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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but does not mention any parameter at all. The schema documents slot, deviceId, and command name, leaving onTs, offTs, label, enabled, and params undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (update an existing schedule slot) and clarifies scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from create_schedule or delete_schedule, but the verb makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus create_schedule, delete_schedule, or other schedule tools, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.