Modify a report's schedule with a cron expression and timezone, or disable it by passing enabled as false.
Update a report's schedule (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cron | No | Cron expression, e.g. 0 8 * * 1 | |
| enabled | No | Pass false to clear (disable) the schedule | |
| timezone | No | Schedule timezone -> scheduleTimezone | |
| report_id | Yes | Report ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the useful auth requirement 'requires write permission', but it does not describe side effects such as whether the entire schedule is replaced or how partial updates behave. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key precondition. There is no redundancy or filler, and the parenthetical 'requires write permission' earns its place as an important operational constraint.
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 simple update tool with one required parameter and fully documented optional parameters, the description plus schema is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks return-value detail and explicit interplay between cron, enabled, and timezone, but the schema covers those fields and no output schema exists.
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%, with each parameter (report_id, cron, enabled, timezone) already explained in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the write-permission context, so the schema carries the burden.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Update a report's schedule', which clearly identifies the operation and target resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like run_report, get_scheduled_reports, and create_report. The parenthetical also signals the write-operation context without ambiguity.
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 clear context by stating the operation and a prerequisite, 'requires write permission', which helps an agent decide if invoking it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using create_report for initial schedule setup or get_scheduled_reports for inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.