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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the date format and Pacific timezone, and the required money scope. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: action first, then example, then critical format and scope details. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation requirements: what it does, when to use it, the date format, timezone, and required scope. It could be more complete on the note parameter, but overall it is well above the minimum viable definition.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does clarify new_end_date format and timezone, but membership_id and note receive no explanation beyond their names; note being required but unexplained is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Push') with a clear resource ('a membership's end date later'), immediately identifying the operation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like freeze_membership and cancel_membership by focusing on extending the end date, with a concrete goodwill-days example.

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?

The goodwill-days-after-cancelled-class example gives a clear real-world context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose and example make the primary use case unmistakable.

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