peaka_update_cache

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the endpoint replaces (not merges) schedules, requiring both schedules to be supplied in full. It also warns that the backend may clamp the schedule and the response reflects the actual applied value. This is valuable behavioral context not inferable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 concise and well-structured: a first paragraph explaining purpose and key semantics, a second paragraph with workflow guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains what to check in the response (the applied schedule, which may be clamped). It also covers projectId acquisition. While it doesn't detail error handling or exact response format, it provides enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly with examples. The description adds the global constraint that both schedules must represent the full intended state (replace semantics) and provides ISO-8601 duration examples. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, so it earns a 4.

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 clearly states the tool updates cache settings on an existing cache, specifically the schedules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_cache, delete_cache, and refresh_cache_full/incremental by focusing on replacing schedule configuration.

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 clear usage context: it tells the agent to call peaka_list_projects first if projectId is unknown and to ask the user. It also implies this is for modifying existing caches rather than creating or deleting them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for other operations, so it's not a full when/when-not.

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