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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that unspecified fields remain unchanged and that next_run_at is recalculated when recurrence parameters change, which are valuable side-effect details. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential conflict scenarios.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the purpose followed by key behavioral information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's 18 parameters (all schema-documented) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core update behavior and side effect. It does not explain return values or parameter interdependencies (e.g., day_of_week constraints), but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantic context by stating this is a partial update—meaning only the id is required and other parameters are optional. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions and clarifies usage intent.

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, specifying that unspecified fields are left unchanged. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_agent_schedule (full creation) and pause/resume_agent_schedule (state changes), providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_agent_schedule or pause_agent_schedule. It implies usage for updating existing schedules but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools are preferred.

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