update_scheduled_task

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly explains partial updates, the semantics of enabled=false as pausing, the fact that schedules cannot be removed here, and instructs the agent to relay any warning from the result verbatim. This is rich, useful behavioral context.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct value: partial-update semantics, pause-vs-delete guidance, schedule-removal limitation, and warning handling. The most important behavior is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral nuances and post-call responsibility (relaying warnings). It does not describe the full success return shape, but the warning instruction addresses the main non-obvious part of handling the result.

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. It adds important meaning to enabled=false as pausing, explains that unspecified optional fields are left untouched, and warns that cron_expression cannot be used to remove a schedule. The remaining parameters (name, model, prompt, task_id) are self-explanatory enough from their names, though not individually documented.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Change a scheduled task.' It adds the crucial partial-update semantic ('Only the fields you pass are touched') and implicitly differentiates this from the delete_scheduled_task sibling by explaining that pausing via enabled=false is preferable to deletion.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use enabled=false to pause instead of deleting, and do not attempt to remove a schedule through this tool—pause it instead. This directly addresses the main alternative and limitation, leaving no ambiguity about the key decision.

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