Update a schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it largely succeeds: it states a partial-update contract ('Only the fields you pass change') and an important billing side effect ('Periods already invoiced are never re-issued'). It does not cover permissions, errors, or return values, but the most consequential behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core identifier constraint is front-loaded. The field enumeration is dense but readable, and every sentence conveys a distinct fact worth knowing.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential update behavior but not the full param set or return/error expectations. It is adequate for basic use but an agent is left guessing about several edge-case parameters and what a successful update returns.

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 description enumerates most of the top-level parameters and adds a meaningful partial-update rule beyond the schema. However, schema coverage is only 38%, and several parameters (tax_note, anchor_day, end_of_month) are omitted; also 'cadence' and 'dates' are imprecise labels for the actual properties 'every', 'start_date', and 'end_date'. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 opens with a precise verb and target ('Change one schedule by id') and lists the mutable fields, making it obvious this is the update operation for an existing schedule. It is clearly distinct from sibling schedule_create, schedule_delete, schedule_get, etc. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately scoped to a single resource.

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 makes clear this is the tool for modifying fields on an existing schedule, which is strong contextual usage guidance. It does not explicitly call out alternatives like schedule_pause, schedule_resume, or schedule_skip when those are the intended action, but the 'Change... by id' phrasing is clear enough for an agent to select it for updates.

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