conduyt_scheduled_export_update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the 403/Enterprise gating on enable, that unspecified fields are preserved (merge, not replace), and how the resulting schedule behaves (weekly on Mondays, morning in account timezone, 14-day file retention). It does not say whether disabling discards configured entities/frequency or what the response returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then preconditions, then merge semantics, then schedule timing — a sensible ordering with no filler. The 14-day retention clause is marginal for an update call, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 3-optional-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the things an agent would otherwise get wrong: plan gating, merge behavior, and schedule timing. The remaining gap is post-mutation state (what happens to existing settings when disabling), which matters but is a single omission.

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 coverage is 100% with all three params described and an enum on frequency, so the schema baseline is already a 3. The description adds real value on top: omitted-field retention semantics and confirmation that weekly means Mondays, resolving ambiguity the enum label alone leaves open.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Update scheduled-export settings', which cleanly pairs with the sibling conduyt_scheduled_export_get_settings (read vs write). It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is left to the tool name rather than stated in prose.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Enabling requires an Enterprise plan, 403 upsell otherwise') and partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields keep their current values'), which tells an agent exactly how to call it incrementally. It stops short of naming the read counterpart as the way to discover current values before updating.

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