openclaw_cron_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the operation is an update (wraps cron.update) and mentions wire format and backward compatibility. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, authorization, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, benefit, details. No fluff or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers input format well but omits return value or error behavior. For an update tool, more context on what the response looks like would improve completeness, especially lacking an output schema.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the wire format (id|jobId + patch), clarifying alias usage, and describing the deprecated job parameter. It also explains that patch should contain only fields to change, which goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 an existing OpenClaw cron job in place' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_cron_add and openclaw_cron_remove by noting it 'avoids the remove + re-add dance', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'when you just want to change schedule, timeout, payload, or delivery', providing clear when-to-use context. It contrasts with remove-and-re-add, implying alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other operations.

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