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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it preserves team members and status, it warns that the action 'Reaches other people', and it states the Cotlet API key auth requirement. These are traits the agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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, but the opening is repetitive: 'Move a job to a new time window', 'Changes the client's appointment', and 'Moves one job to a new start and, if given, a new end' restate the same idea three times. The confirmation boilerplate is boilerplate; the sentences earn partial keep but there is clear redundancy.

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 reschedule mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key substance: what changes, what is preserved (team members, status), the auth requirement, and the confirmation/other-people caution. Minor gaps remain (e.g. no note on downstream calendar notifications), but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id, start, and the optional end. The description's 'new start and, if given, a new end' mirrors the required/optional split but adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies 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 ('Move a job to a new time window') and clarifies scope ('Moves one job'). The note that the job 'keeps its assigned team members and its status' implicitly separates it from workiz_assign_job and workiz_create_job, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Provides confirmation and human-in-the-loop guidance ('confirm each call', 'Reaches other people: confirm with the user before each call'), which is useful operational context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. create_job or assign_job), so the usage framing is only implied.

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