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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing the cascade behavior ('everything after it moves too'), the non-resend guarantee for already-sent items, and the two-phase preview/execute semantics. It does not say what the preview response contains or what happens when the new date falls in the past.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a parenthetical that front-loads the effect, then the side effects, then the safety gate. No padding and nothing important buried.

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 destructive timeline mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the key risks (cascade, no resend, preview gate) but leaves the identifier parameter and the preview payload format unexplained. Adequate, with real gaps around a required parameter.

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 33% — only confirm is documented in the schema. The description reinforces the yyyy-MM-dd format and the confirm gate, but the required 'id' parameter is never explained (presumably an enrollment id, but that is inference). The extra meaning added over the schema is modest.

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 effect: moves a client's Day 1 to a new date and shifts everything downstream. The scope (program enrollment timeline) is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling mutations like pause_program_enrollment or edit_program_enrollment, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explains the confirm-gated workflow (previews until confirm: true), which is genuinely actionable context. However it gives no guidance on when to choose this over edit_program_enrollment, cancel_program_enrollment, or resume_program_enrollment, so the agent must infer boundaries from names alone.

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