update-fleet-schedule

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

The description only states 'Update', which implies mutation, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint false). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether the update is atomic, if there are side effects, permission requirements, or how partial updates work).

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, well-formed sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; no fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested object) and the presence of siblings, the description is minimally adequate. It lists updatable fields but does not clarify if the update is partial or full, or mention that the 'id' is required. No output schema is expected, but the behavioral context is thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds a summary of updatable fields but does not explain the 'rule' nested object or the 'versionToLatest' parameter beyond what the schema provides. No meaningful extra semantics.

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 uses a specific verb (update) and resource (fleet schedule), listing the exact fields that can be modified (name, query, recurrence rule, or status). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create-fleet-schedule, delete-fleet-schedule, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, trigger). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the schedule must exist, nor does it indicate whether the update is partial or requires all fields.

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