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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to carry the entire safety burden. However, it does not explain what is destructive about moving an existing follow-up, whether the previous reminder is overwritten, or what permissions are required. The phrase 'move an existing one' adds only minimal context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the gaps documented elsewhere rather than being an independent strength.

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 destructive mutation tool with five parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not resolve how to target a conversation or contact, why due_at is the only required field, or what the destructive behavior means in practice.

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 only 20%, with just due_at briefly documented as an ISO date-time. The description adds no meaning for the five parameters, does not clarify that due_at is required, and gives no guidance on contact_id versus conversation_urn or how name and note are used.

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 verb and resource: create a follow-up reminder on a conversation, or move an existing one. It is clear at a high level, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like complete_follow_up or list_follow_ups.

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 a context for creating or moving a follow-up, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never mentions when to use this instead of complete_follow_up or how to handle an existing follow-up.

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