create_settings_jobs_by_job_id_schedule

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

Annotations already convey idempotency, non-destructiveness, and non-read-only status. The description adds 'Modify job schedule' and the HTTP method, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to the schedule on repeated calls. It meets the lower bar set by annotations but adds limited behavioral context.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, the endpoint, and two short parameter notes. Every sentence contributes value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the endpoint, maps both parameters, and tells the agent how to discover the opaque body schema. It falls short only in not distinguishing from close siblings or noting any side effects, but those are secondary given the existing structured metadata.

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 0%, and the body parameter is an open object with additionalProperties. The description compensates by identifying job_id as a path parameter and explicitly directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the body fields. This is essential semantic guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 modifies a job schedule, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_settings_jobs_by_job_id_cancel or run, but the resource and verb are unambiguous enough for an agent to understand its role.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the cancel/run siblings. The only instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for body fields, which is parameter discovery rather than usage selection. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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