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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds substantial context: the return value reflects the updated schedule, dependent tasks are not surfaced (re-list needed), the edit reaches no client, it is reversible with one more call, and it requires an API key with app access. These are behavioral facts well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences each carry distinct information (return behavior, dependents, reversibility, auth). It is slightly padded by repeating the vendor name already present in the title, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 return shape, downstream dependency handling, reversibility, confirmation policy, and auth prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the three editable fields but adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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: changes start date, end date or percent complete of one task on the project schedule. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list tool, which it names explicitly. No ambiguity about what the tool mutates.

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 trigger (changing dates or percent complete) and directs the agent to call list_schedule_tasks again to observe dependent tasks. It also states the tool runs without confirmation, which is a usage policy. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for other edit types, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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