update_scheduleUpdate an existing on-call schedule by ID to change its name, time zone, owner, Slack channel, business hours, coverage, or notification preferences.
Updates a specific schedule by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the schedule (fills `{id}` in /v1/schedules/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `schedule_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered by structure. The description adds nothing about update semantics — crucially, whether omitted `attributes` fields are preserved or cleared, which is the single most consequential unknown in a PATCH-style nested update.
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?
One sentence with zero waste and a front-loaded verb, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — nothing is left after the tautological restatement of the name.
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?
Rich schema (nested attributes, conditional constraints like shift-report flags requiring slack_channel) and an output schema exist, so the description needn't explain returns. Still, for a mutation on a 15+ attribute object, the absence of any partial-vs-full update statement leaves a real gap.
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 coverage is reported at 50%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It says only 'by id', giving no hint about the `data` wrapper, the JSON:API `type` discriminator, or which attributes are writable versus derived (e.g., `time_zone`).
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?
Clear verb + resource: 'Updates a specific schedule by id'. An agent knows exactly which record type is mutated. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as update_schedule_rotation or update_override_shift, but the noun 'schedule' is distinct enough.
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 update_schedule_rotation or list_schedules/get_schedule first. No prerequisites (e.g., needing a schedule id from list_schedules) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.