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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that a weekday scope creates a standing rule; it does not say whether existing planned dinners are re-timed, whether both date and weekdays can be combined, or whether a rule is created behind the scenes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the two scope modes stated compactly and no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ("Move when dinner is served") costs it the top mark, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is serviceable but leaves the key ambiguity unresolved: what happens if both date and weekdays are supplied, and what downstream effect the change has on the current plan. No output schema exists, so the description could have said more about the effect without duplicating structured data.

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 100%, so the schema already explains date, time, and weekdays including the omit-behaviors. The description restates the date-versus-weekdays mapping but adds no format, precedence, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb phrase "Move when dinner is served" names a specific resource (dinner serving time) and the description distinguishes its two scoping modes: one evening versus a recurring weekday rule. It is clear enough to separate from siblings like set_dinner_lock or set_leftover_dinners, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (to shift the dinner time for one evening or as a standing rule) and how scope maps to the inputs. It offers no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no pointer to adjacent tools such as set_dinner_lock or replan_open_days that an agent might confuse with this one.

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