Update an existing scheduled instruction by its ID. Modify schedule details, parameters, or enable/disable it to adjust device management actions.
Update an existing Scheduled Instruction by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| comments | No | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| scheduleEnabled | No | ||
| scheduleFreqType | No | ||
| scheduleFreqInterval | No | ||
| scheduleActiveStartDate | No | ||
| scheduleActiveStartTime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update'. It does not state whether this is a partial or full replacement, whether it requires special permissions, what side effects occur on scheduling, or what the response looks like. It adds little beyond the tool name.
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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the operation and target. There is no wasted text, though it is perhaps too terse for the complexity of the tool; the conciseness itself is good.
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 high complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), this description is far from complete. It does not explain update semantics, parameter values, required vs optional behavior, or any side effects. An agent would be guessing about critical details needed to invoke it correctly.
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 provides no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. It does not clarify the meaning or format of scheduleFreqType, scheduleActiveStartTime, parameters, or how the update behaves when optional fields are omitted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the bare schema names.
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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing Scheduled Instruction'), and the target mechanism ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools for create, cancel, delete, and get_by_id, so an agent can confidently select it for modifying an existing scheduled instruction.
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 phrase 'existing' and 'by ID' implies this tool is for records that already exist and that the caller must supply an ID, which is a basic usage cue. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer update over create, cancel, or delete, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.