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

The description discloses rich behavioral details beyond the minimal annotations: it creates a Pending reschedule entry, does NOT immediately change the task, requires operator approval, and explains counter-reschedule flow. This is exactly the context an agent needs to understand side effects and async behavior.

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 long but every sentence adds necessary information about preconditions, mechanism, parameters, or next steps. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though slightly dense; a modest reduction in wording could improve readability without loss of detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, async approval flow, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers preconditions, required input combinations, effect on the original schedule, operator actions, and suggested follow-up tools, leaving little ambiguity about how and when to use it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantic constraints: 'Provide at least one of: newTimeWindowStart/End (range), newRequestedTime (preferred time), newCommittedTime (firm commitment)' and explains the yyyyMMddHHmmss format. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions by grouping related parameters and clarifying requirements.

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 'Propose a new time window for a task', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_reschedule, reject_reschedule, and list_reschedules by emphasizing that it only creates a pending request.

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 provides explicit preconditions (rescheduleAllowed=true) and clearly states when not to use the tool. It also gives alternative/next steps: 'Next: list_reschedules to verify status, or wait for operator response via get_task_events', which helps the agent decide between this and related actions.

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