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

Annotation Contradiction: the description states 'Repeating a swap swaps the dates back,' meaning the same call can undo the previous result and the operation is not idempotent, while idempotentHint=true claims it is. The description otherwise discloses useful traits such as refusals, frequency enforcement, and return value, but the direct contradiction with the annotation forces the lowest score.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and packs swap behavior, frequency rules, refusal conditions, repeat behavior, return value, and website_id guidance into six dense sentences. No sentence is filler.

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 mutating reschedule operation, the description covers prerequisites, failure conditions, target-day conflicts, repetition semantics, multi-website handling, and return value; the output schema supplies return structure. It is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool, aside from the annotation contradiction already flagged.

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%, providing baseline parameter documentation. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of swap_with_scheduled_article_id ('exchange dates... instead of stacking') and the condition for website_id ('see get_account'). This exceeds the baseline without needing to restate formats.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Moves a scheduled article to another date (YYYY-MM-DD).' It clearly distinguishes this action from scheduling, updating, or deleting by focusing on the date move and the swap semantics, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like schedule_article and update_scheduled_article.

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 description gives clear conditional guidance: when to pass swap_with_scheduled_article_id, what happens without a swap, and when website_id is needed ('when the account has several websites'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to select it correctly.

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