deployado_update_cron_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what happens to fields not supplied, whether the cron schedule is re-validated, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though that efficiency comes at the cost of substance rather than being paired with it.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema and non-idempotent semantics, the description should at least clarify partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields are preserved or reset) and what the response contains. None of that is present.

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 of the 8 properties documented and the status enum enumerated, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no semantics of its own, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 cron job. An agent can identify the operation immediately, though the description offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like deployado_create_cron_job or deployado_delete_cron_job beyond the name itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_cron_job, delete_cron_job, or run_cron_job, and no prerequisites (e.g., the job must already exist, app_id must match). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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