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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate mutability. It adds the ambiguity-handling behavior (ask which event) and notes it returns the upcoming schedule, but never explains what 'destructive' means here (what happens to the old time slot, permission needs, or reversibility).

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the primary trigger front-loaded before the disambiguation and the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the tool's main decision points (when to use, ambiguity, alternative) are covered. The only remaining gap is the unexplained destructive semantics of rescheduling, which the annotations partially cover.

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 title/start/end are already documented at the source, including 'matched by title' and 'same format as add_event'. The description adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource+effect: moving an existing Xenition calendar event to a new time. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_event, so an agent can pick between creating and moving 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 trigger (user wants to move an existing event), an in-tool disambiguation rule (ask which event if several share the name), and names the alternative tool with its condition (to add a new event use add_event). Nothing 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.