aap_update_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds the PATCH method and return format (id, name, next_run), providing some behavioral context, but it does not explain partial update semantics or potential side effects.

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 very concise and well-structured, with purpose, args, and returns in three clear sections, with no wasted words.

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 operation, the description covers purpose, input, and output, but the lack of parameter-level details and partial-update behavior leaves some ambiguity. The schema and return text carry much of the information, yet the description could have clarified whether omitted fields remain unchanged.

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% and the description only says 'Fields to update' without explaining any individual parameters. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names and types, and does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 AAP schedule (PATCH)', naming the verb and resource specifically. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like aap_create_schedule or aap_delete_schedule, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, with no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the usage context entirely implied.

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