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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is limited to draft batches and it returns the batch's recomputed rates. It still omits what happens to previously quoted rates or whether failures roll back the move.

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?

A single sentence with the core action and outcome front-loaded; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers enough to attempt the call but leaves gaps: how to obtain a draft batch, where the allowed ship_dates come from, and what an error or rejected transition looks like are all unstated.

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 only 50%: ship_date is documented in the schema (must be one of the rate's ship_dates, YYYY-MM-DD) but batch_id has no description anywhere, and the description does not explain it or how to discover a batch's valid ship dates. With a coverage gap this size, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Moves a draft batch to another ship date') plus the side effect (recomputed rates), so an agent can tell it apart from rename_batch, create_batch, or get_rates. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the 'draft batch' scoping is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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 phrase 'draft batch' implies a precondition (only draft batches qualify), which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement, no mention of what to do for a non-draft batch, and no pointer to siblings for obtaining a batch or rates.

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