update_schedule_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not state whether the update is incremental or full, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. The single constraint about member CRM data is not sufficient.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and adds a necessary constraint, making it highly concise and well-structured for the limited content it contains.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only provides a one-line purpose and a single constraint. It lacks any detail about parameter usage, side effects, return values, or when to use the tool, making it inadequate for an agent to safely and correctly invoke it.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter semantics. While parameter names like 'openingTime' and 'weekDisplay' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on formats, defaults, or relationships between fields.

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 'Update center schedule defaults' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_schedule_settings (retrieval) and update_center_profile (profile settings). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'operational settings' and the constraint about not including CRM data offer some context, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a sibling tool such as get_schedule_settings for reading defaults.

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