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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: it validates the sequence order, refuses out-of-order moves, rejects dates before the reference document, and states that the date drives lateness calculations. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate validation failures.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, constraints are stated directly, and the consequence of the date is included. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the validation rules, and the impact on lateness. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but that is often standard for mutation tools. The only notable gap is that 'planned' is mentioned in the sequence but not in the status enum, which could confuse an agent, but this is a minor omission given the overall clarity.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not need to repeat that. It does add the sequencing of statuses and the note requirement for 'accepted', but the note parameter is optional in the schema, creating a slight mismatch. Overall, the description adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record a dated move') and identifies the resource ('one deliverable') and the lifecycle statuses (planned, in_progress, delivered, accepted). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like deliverable_add (which creates) and deliverable_delete (which removes). The title also reinforces the action.

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 when to use this tool: when moving a deliverable along its status sequence. It mentions the order constraints and that a date before the reference document is refused, which tells the agent when the call may fail. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes it obvious this is the status-update tool, so the usage context is clear enough.

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