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

Goes well beyond the destructive=true/idempotent=false annotations by disclosing that a title or keyword change clears and rewrites the body (regenerate: true), that hand-edited articles refuse the swap, that the duplicate-intent guard can return blocked, and that the operation is a two-step confirm flow returning a confirmToken.

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?

Front-loads what the tool changes, then layers edge cases, alternatives, and the destructive confirm flow. Every sentence adds actionable information; no filler despite the density.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it discloses the key response fields (regenerate, blocked, confirmToken) and the safety flow. Only the metric-only parameters (difficulty, intent, searchVolume) remain unaddressed, a minor gap.

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?

With 70% schema coverage, the schema carries most parameter docs, but the description adds genuine meaning for force (overrides the duplicate-intent guard) and confirmToken (omit on first call to receive a summary). It leaves difficulty, intent, and searchVolume unexplained, but those are minor metric fields.

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+resource (change/edit a plan entry) and enumerates exactly what can be changed: title, publishDate, keyword. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_article (published articles) and reschedule_overdue (bulk overdue), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions with named alternatives: published articles cannot be edited here (use update_article), and bulk overdue moves belong to reschedule_overdue. It also names the conditions that select the force override and the confirmToken flow.

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