Modify a scheduled message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: one sentence with the action, endpoint, body fields, and a reference link, plus a warning about side effects. It front-loads the action and resource. The reference link and warning are useful, though the body field list could be seen as partially redundant with the schema.

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 output schema, the description covers the key operational context: endpoint, required body fields, confirm flag, write opt-in, and potential side effects. It doesn't describe the response format, but the reference link and schema cover the request. Given the complexity (nested body, confirm requirement), this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description lists body fields (id, name, event, attachments, recurrence) and the confirm requirement, adding some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Complete API JSON payload' note. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of each field or how recurrence/attachments should be structured, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 states a clear verb ('Modify') and resource ('a scheduled message'), and includes the API endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like create/delete/get scheduled messages by the verb. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'xmatters_get_a_scheduled_message' or other modify tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies when to use it: when modifying an existing scheduled message, and the schema's confirm parameter plus the note about operator write opt-in provide context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the endpoint and body fields give enough context for an agent to select it over create/delete/get siblings.

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