Update Job Schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a job's scheduled window / assigned employees' and points to external docs, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to unsupported fields. The agent is left reliant on the linked documentation for critical behavioral context.

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 one sentence plus a docs link, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, though it is arguably too sparse to stand alone. The structure is clean and efficient.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (a raw JSON body) and no output schema or annotations. The description covers basic purpose and provides a docs link, but it omits return-value details, error scenarios, and any side effects. It is not fully self-contained, though the docs link partially mitigates this gap.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including that `body` is a raw pass-through object. The description adds minimal value by naming 'scheduled window / assigned employees' as the body's content, but this is not essential given the schema's high coverage. The description does not introduce new parameter-level detail.

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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('a job's scheduled window / assigned employees'), making it distinct from sibling tools like update_customer or create_job. It provides specific scope 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 implies this tool is for schedule updates but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., get_schedule_windows). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback tools, so guidance is only implicit through the stated purpose.

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