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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world), but the description adds real behavioral context: notifying assigned users/subs, gating on the schedule being Online, cascading to dependent items, per-call confirmation, and API key requirements. This goes well beyond what the annotations disclose.

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-loaded with the core action and scope, then behavior. Mild redundancy: the confirm-each-call point is stated twice ('By default you confirm each call' and 'Reaches other people: confirm with the user before each call'), so one sentence doesn't fully earn 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral and auth context (notifications, dependencies, confirmation, API key). Complete enough to call correctly, though it could mention how partial updates (only start_date or only duration) are handled.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining notify_assignees' conditional behavior (only fires when the schedule is Online) and tying start_date/duration_days to the 'move or resize' action.

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 ('Move or resize a schedule item', 'Changes the start date or duration of one schedule item'), narrowing scope to a single item. An agent can distinguish this mutation tool from the read-side sibling buildertrend_get_schedule 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?

Explains the context of use (changing start date/duration of one item) and describes the notify_assignees toggle condition, but doesn't name a direct alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case. Clear enough for routing, short of full exclusion guidance.

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