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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description goes beyond them by explaining the two behavioral branches: a waiting task moves together with its release and dispatches immediately if moved into the week ahead, while a launched task keeps running and only its calendar day changes. It also discloses an authentication prerequisite ('It needs an act key'), which the annotations do not carry. Failure modes and whether the owner is notified of the change are not covered.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the middle sentence is a dense parenthetical about engines and weeks ahead that costs more in decoding effort than it returns. The trailing sentence about the act key is a fragment tacked on at the end rather than integrated into the constraints.

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 four-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context an agent needs: the eligibility precondition, the allowed date window, the reason requirement, and the auth requirement. What is missing is modest — behavior on an invalid or out-of-horizon date and whether the change is reversible.

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 documents id, date, reason and the optional project parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the date range and the plain-words reason rather than adding new semantics, and the 'act key' it mentions does not correspond to any declared parameter, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies the parameter set.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Move a task ... to another day of the calendar' — and adds a meaningful scope constraint ('a task that has not gone live'). It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as slot_move or work_plan, and the in-house metaphors ('gone live', 'its engine', 'act key') require the reader to infer meaning from context rather than from the text.

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?

It implies when the tool applies by stating the precondition that the task must not have gone live, and bounds the target date to today through situation.horizon.end. It never names an alternative tool (slot_move, work_plan, work_cancel) or says what to do when the task has already launched, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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