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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: out-of-order moves are refused, dates before the reference document are refused, and the date drives lateness. However, it does not explain the results of a successful move, response shape, or permissions, and its mention of 'planned' as a move step is inconsistent with the status enum, which omits 'planned'.

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 three terse sentences with the core action firstholmes and then the key constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description captures the workflow and the schema covers parameter semantics, so a plausible call can be made. But as a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important context undefined: what a 'reference document' is, what a successful call returns, and how to reconcile the 'planned' state being absent from the status enum.

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% and the schema already documents all five parameters, including defaults, format, and allowed enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning around date ordering and status sequence, but it does not clarify the 'reference document' or expand on note requirements beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a dated move on one deliverable'), and enumerates the lifecycle states (planned, in_progress, delivered, accepted). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deliverable_add/delete, which add or remove deliverables rather than changing status.

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 implies the tool is for recording dated deliverable status transitions cherry-picked from a lifecycle, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The refusal rules hint at valid usage, but an agent must infer the intended trigger.

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