update_scheduled_job

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

The description adds a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED) beyond annotations, which already indicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose specific behavioral traits like permissible field updates or side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, concise sentence that clearly conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite. It is efficiently front-loaded 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?

Despite annotations covering idempotency and non-destructive behavior, the description lacks comprehensive context for a mutation tool. It does not explain potential restrictions on fields, validation rules, or post-update effects, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (sys_id and fields). The tool description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a scheduled job,' which provides a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scheduled_job or trigger_scheduled_job, as 'update' implies modification of an existing entity.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_scheduled_job for creation or trigger_scheduled_job for execution.

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