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

Annotations only supply generic flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds real behavioral detail: oldest-first ordering, one article per day, skip rules for occupied days and past-window days. It also discloses the dryRun preview behavior, which is genuinely useful for a mutating tool. It stops short of permissions or failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its ordering rules, then the dashboard analogy, then the dryRun note. Every sentence carries information, though the first sentence is dense enough to warrant a re-read.

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 mutating batch tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers what gets moved, ordering, skip rules, and preview semantics — enough to call it safely. Minor gaps remain around required state (e.g., autopilot mode) and error/edge behavior.

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 coverage is 50% — the required `site` param is documented in the schema, but `dryRun` has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining exactly what `dryRun: true` does (returns planned moves without changing anything), adding meaning beyond the bare boolean.

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?

States a specific verb (move) plus the exact resource and scope (every unwritten entry dated before the current week), and the batch nature distinguishes it from the singular reschedule_article sibling without naming it. An agent knows precisely what this tool acts on.

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 trigger condition (overdue, unwritten entries) is clear, and the dashboard-button analogy anchors it to a known operation. However, it never names reschedule_article as the single-entry alternative or states any when-not-to-use condition, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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