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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: the post-approval refusal rule and the routing through accept_schedule_change, plus the paymentId requirement for 'later'. It does not describe reversibility or permissions, but adds real value on top of the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then target semantics, then the approval caveat. No filler, though the phrasing 'target deposit moves the deposit date' is slightly circular.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the key quirk (post-approval refusal) and the two operating modes, leaving only minor gaps around dueOn semantics and how suggestions relate to direct moves.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains target's two enum values and that 'later' requires paymentId, covering two of four params, but says nothing about dueOn (a YYYY-MM-DD date) or scheduleId beyond their self-evident names/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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move a payment date') and unpacks the two target modes, so an agent understands exactly what the tool mutates. It references accept_schedule_change but never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling suggest_schedule_change, which is the closest neighbor, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: 'target deposit' vs 'target later' (which requires paymentId), and states that after approval a different date is refused until accept_schedule_change applies a suggestion. That names an alternative and the trigger for it, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' framing.

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