backup_set_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: it warns that ambiguous instance names are refused rather than guessed, that all times are UTC, that a disabled instance retains but never runs the schedule, and that dow is passed through unchecked so the result must be read back to confirm.

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?

Purpose, caveats, and alternative are front-loaded before the Args block, and every sentence carries information. It is on the long side, but given 0% schema coverage the explicit Args list is load-bearing rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the return ('the schedule as it stands after the change'), which is the right level. Combined with the parameter and safety detail, nothing needed to call this mutation correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it documents all five parameters, including valid schedule_type values, hour 0-23 UTC, dow required only for weekly, and dom range 1-28 required only for monthly. It even flags the dow range ambiguity rather than silently guessing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (set the automatic backup schedule for an instance) and immediately scopes it: it sets *when* backups run, not whether they run. An agent can distinguish it from backup_get_schedule and from instance_update without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion ('does not turn backups on') and the alternative to use instead (instance_update with backups=true). It also specifies the identifier resolution rule and the refusal-on-ambiguity behavior, so invocation preconditions are unambiguous.

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