update_agent_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses two important behaviors: partial update semantics (unspecified fields unchanged) and automatic recalculation of next_run_at when recurrence parameters change. This adds value beyond the schema, though it omits other side effects or prerequisites.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds meaningful detail.

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?

Despite high complexity (18 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core semantics sufficiently. However, it does not address how to clear optional fields (using null is impossible due to schema), potential validation constraints, or what the response contains, leaving some gaps.

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?

All 18 parameters already have rich descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about recurrence parameters influencing next_run_at, but it does not enumerate which parameters are recurrence-related or provide additional syntax details beyond the 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 performs a partial update on a Rolli Agent schedule, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_agent_schedule, delete_agent_schedule, pause_agent_schedule, and resume_agent_schedule.

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 use for modifying specific schedule fields without affecting others, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Sibling tools exist for creation, deletion, pausing, and resume, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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