update_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without specifying whether this is a partial or full update, what side effects occur (e.g., affecting running scans), or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, as an agent cannot infer the exact impact.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and contains zero filler words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and does not waste the agent's attention.

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 description is minimal and relies entirely on the schema for context. It does not clarify update semantics (partial vs. full), what happens if the schedule_id does not exist, or the result of a successful update. Given there are no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 all four parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Enable or disable the schedule', 'New frequency'). The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 'Update an existing scan schedule' clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (scan schedule), and the scope (existing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schedule, delete_schedule, and list_schedules. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'existing scan schedule' implies the tool is used when a schedule has already been created and needs modification, and the required schedule_id parameter reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over create or delete, nor any prerequisites or conditions, leaving usage guidance largely implicit.

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