service_backups_set_schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the risky nature is communicated structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path: it does not say that calling it overwrites the current schedule, whether the previous schedule is discarded, what permissions are required, or what happens to already-stored backups.

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?

Extremely short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The second line is a raw HTTP route that restates the tool name in path form and adds no semantic value.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It omits the overwrite semantics, the conditional relationship between type and weekDay/monthDay, and any indication of the response or failure modes.

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 reported at 0%, and the description says nothing about the body fields. It does not explain that 'type' selects daily/weekly/monthly, that limit caps retained backups at 1-5, or that weekDay/monthDay only matter for the corresponding type — a real dependency an agent could easily get wrong. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

"Set schedule for service" gives a verb and a resource, but names the service rather than the backup schedule, so the actual object being modified (backup retention schedule) is only inferable from the tool name and the URL path. It is enough to guess this configures backups scheduling, but it does not clearly separate it from siblings like service_backups_create or service_backups_enable_backups.

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 the other backup tools (create, enable, disable, get_list). No prerequisites, no note that it replaces an existing schedule, and no mention that backups may need to be enabled first.

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