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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds substantive context beyond them: the recomputation-at-call-time semantics, that the response reports what actually moved, and the required Administrator/ProjectManager role. No contradictions with the destructive/idempotent hints.

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?

Two dense sentences, with the "CONSEQUENTIAL" risk flag and the action front-loaded before the workflow advice. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, freshness of computation, return semantics, permission requirements, and the safety workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description scopes the operation to a project but adds no format, range, or validation detail beyond that.

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 and resource ("reschedule a project — move its tasks' dates") plus the constraint it honors (dependencies and working calendar). The parenthetical "not taken from an earlier preview" separates it from preview_auto_schedule without needing the schema.

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 an explicit workflow precondition ("Preview and confirm with the user first") and contrasts with a stale preview, which steers the agent toward preview_auto_schedule first. It stops short of naming that sibling tool directly, so the routing is clear but slightly inferential.

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