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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still reinforces it with 'without changing anything' and adds two things the annotations don't: the authorization requirement and the shape of the result (affected tasks with old vs new dates). It stops short of covering failure modes, e.g. what happens if the project has no dependencies or the calendar is unset.

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?

One dense sentence with the no-side-effects guarantee front-loaded, followed by two short clauses for the permission and ordering. The middle clause ('every task whose dates its dependencies and the working calendar would move') is grammatically tangled and costs a re-read, which is the only waste.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description still explains what comes back (per-task old vs new dates), why it matters, and how it pairs with the applying tool. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single projectId parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that the scope is 'one project', which is implied by the parameter anyway; no extra syntax or constraints are offered.

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 ('Show what auto-scheduling one project would change') and immediately scopes it as a dry run. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling apply_auto_schedule, so an agent can pick the right one without opening either 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 ordering rule — 'Show this to the user before apply_auto_schedule' — which is the exact when-to-use condition for a preview tool. It also states the required role (Administrator or ProjectManager), covering the precondition an agent must check first.

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