Update a scheduled job (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update a scheduled job (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, script, run_type, run_time, run_period, active | |
| sys_id | Yes | Scheduled job sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Fields to update (name, script, active, run_type, run_time, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, script, run_type, run_time, run_period, active"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "run_period": {},
+ "run_time": {},
+ "run_type": {},
+ "script": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate — but says nothing about partial-vs-full field replacement, validation behavior, or what a successful update returns.
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?
A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite appended in parentheses — no wasted words. It is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing present is filler.
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 mutation tool with a nested-object parameter and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and the description covers the write-enable prerequisite. It leaves open how the update merges with existing job settings and what failure conditions look like, which an agent would want before calling 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: sys_id is documented and the nested fields object enumerates allowed keys with additionalProperties=false. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update a scheduled job"), which is unambiguous about the operation being performed. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like trigger_scheduled_job, create_scheduled_job, or get_scheduled_job, but the verb+resource pairing is clear enough that an agent can identify the tool's role.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this modifies an existing job, unlike create_scheduled_job or trigger_scheduled_job. The WRITE_ENABLED=true note is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule, and no alternative tool is named or excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.