cron_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the important non-destructive trait that the job id and run history are preserved during edits. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, how omitted or null parameters are interpreted, or whether changes take effect immediately—leaving significant behavioral 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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and the key preservation guarantee. It wastes no words, though it could have included minimal parameter context without losing conciseness.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, this one-line description is incomplete. It leaves unspecified which fields can be edited, how null values behave, required parameters beyond job_id, and any interaction with cron_run or cron_list. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these missing usage semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it adds none. It does not mention job_id, model, prompt, schedule, reasoning_effort, or the semantics of null versus omitted fields. An agent cannot infer how to compose the request from the description alone.

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 ('Change'), a specific resource ('scheduled job'), and the crucial qualifier 'in place, keeping its id and run history,' which clearly distinguishes it from cron_create. An agent can immediately tell this is an edit operation on an existing job rather than creation or listing.

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 'Change a scheduled job in place' implies this is for modifying an existing job, and 'keeping its id and run history' suggests it is not the tool for creating new jobs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like cron_create or state conditions for when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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