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

Annotations already tell the agent this is destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the description's main remaining job is to explain consequences of a destructive write. It does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether changing dates shifts dependent tasks, or what happens when dates conflict with duration.

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 front-loaded sentence covering the resource and all updatable fields with no filler. Brevity only costs it in what it leaves out, not in wasted words.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with seven parameters and no output schema, the description omits field-level interactions, side effects on the schedule, and the result of the call. Key behavior an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 71%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the schema's field labels (name, dates, length, percent complete) but adds no extra meaning, notably omitting the important start_date/duration_days interaction the schema already documents.

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?

A clear verb-plus-resource statement ('Change ... of a task on the project schedule') that also names every updatable field. It distinguishes itself from list_schedule_tasks implicitly through the schema, but the description itself does not call out the sibling relationship.

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 description says nothing about when to use this versus list_schedule_tasks or other update tools, and gives no prerequisites such as first fetching task_id via list_schedule_tasks. The only usage hint ('task_id from list_schedule_tasks') lives in the schema, not in the description.

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