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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses dependency cascading, that the target date snaps to the next working day, the 422 failure modes, the Administrator/ProjectManager permission requirement, and that changes are inert until apply_scenario. It also describes what the response contains (task-by-task diff plus both project end dates).

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 the core action and scope in the first sentence, then layers constraints, commit semantics, response content, and permissions. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph is dense enough that a reader must hold several clauses at once.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, error path, non-idempotency, side effects on dependencies, the apply lifecycle, and return content. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the move is in calendar days and the result lands on the next working day. It does not elaborate on the id/taskId parameters, which the schema already names clearly.

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+scope: 'move one task by some calendar days' in 'the scenario only'. It is clearly separable from update_task (edits task fields) and apply_scenario (commits the scenario), both of which appear as siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use it ('in the scenario only'), when not to ('Phases and undated tasks cannot be moved (422)'), and routes the commit step to apply_scenario. It also warns that repeated calls compound movement, which is a usage-relevant condition.

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