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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description still adds real value: it says only the calendar changes, that the move is reversible ('one more call moves it back'), that it runs without confirmation, and that it requires the user's Cotlet API key. That goes meaningfully beyond the structured hints.

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?

The first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Move a scheduled visit to another day or crew' vs 'Moves one scheduled visit to a new date, and to another crew if you name one'), which wastes space. The safety and auth notes are useful, but the redundancy costs it.

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 the mutation's scope (calendar only), its reversibility, the no-confirmation behavior, and the auth prerequisite. It omits what the response returns, but no output schema exists to lean on, so a minor gap remains.

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 job_id, date, and crew are already documented, including crew's 'Default: unchanged'. The description only restates that crew is optional ('if you name one'), adding marginal meaning over the schema, so 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 specific verb and resource ('Move a scheduled visit to another day or crew') and scopes it to a single visit, so an agent can tell exactly what operation it performs. Within the service-autopilot family it is the only reschedule tool, so no sibling confusion arises.

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?

Implies usage (reschedule an existing scheduled visit using a job_id) but never states when to use this versus alternatives like creating a new job or updating a job's status. The reversibility note hints at when it is safe to call, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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